## Facts

- The Tranfields bought an uphill property that had a limited ocean view across Arcuni-English’s downhill parcel.
- Soon after they moved in, conflicts arose, including Arcuni-English’s belief that Mr. Tranfield took her firewood and disputes about cutting and clearing near the boundary.
- Arcuni-English told Mr. Tranfield she would install a ten-foot barrier to block the Tranfields’ view.
- After the Tranfields cleared deadwood and debris on their lot, Arcuni-English sought additional privacy and arranged for landscaping along the boundary.
- A landscaper planted about twenty-four arborvitaes in a uniform line on the boundary; many were about ten to twelve feet tall, with additional trees added to fill gaps.
- The plantings formed a dense, continuous wall that completely blocked the Tranfields’ prior ocean view.
- The Tranfields sued alleging a statutory “spite fence” under 17 M.R.S. § 2801 and common-law nuisance.
- After a bench trial, the Superior Court found for the Tranfields and issued an injunction requiring removal and trimming of the trees.

## Issues

1. Whether a deliberately planted, dense line of trees can be a “fence or other structure in the nature of a fence” under 17 M.R.S. § 2801.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Arcuni-English kept and maintained the barrier with a dominantly malicious purpose to annoy the Tranfields.
3. Whether the barrier “unnecessarily exceed[ed] 6 feet in height” within the meaning of § 2801.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering injunctive relief requiring removal, thinning, and trimming.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment for the Tranfields.
- The Court held that the row of arborvitaes functioned as a boundary barrier and qualified as a “structure in the nature of a fence” under § 2801.
- The Court upheld the trial court’s finding of dominantly malicious motive, supported by competent record evidence, including the prior threat to block the view and the scope of the barrier.
- The Court upheld the finding that the trees unnecessarily exceeded six feet because privacy could have been achieved with fewer and/or shorter plantings.
- The Court held that the injunction was a fair, properly tailored equitable remedy and not an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Under 17 M.R.S. § 2801, a “fence or other structure in the nature of a fence” may include an artificial, uniform vegetative barrier intentionally installed to act as a screen or boundary wall.
- A plaintiff must prove that the barrier is maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the adjoining owner; malice is satisfied by a “dominantly malicious” motive even if some legitimate interest exists.
- The “unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet” element is met when the height and density exceed what is reasonably needed for legitimate purposes (such as privacy) and instead serves the annoying purpose (such as view obstruction).
- Trial courts have broad equitable discretion to craft injunctions tailored to abate a statutory private nuisance, including requiring selective removal and imposing height limits.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that a boundary wall of planted trees can violate Maine’s spite-fence statute and constitute a nuisance when its height and density are unnecessary for legitimate privacy and are primarily intended to annoy a neighbor, and it approved a tailored injunction reducing the barrier’s density and height.


Tranfield v. Arcuni-English, 215 A.3d 222 (Me. 2019)