Opinion
No. CV-05-4004933
February 9, 2007.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff brings this action alleging that the defendant erected a "spite fence" which has diminished the value of her property.
The law regarding spite fences has not substantially changed since the first case interpreting the statutory remedy. In Whitlock v. Uhle, 75 Conn. 423 (1903), the Court explained that the statute provided legal and equitable remedies for the erection of a structure which is intended to annoy and injure the owner or lessee of adjacent land in his use or disposition thereof. The erection of a structure on one's own land, which impairs the value of adjacent land creates a liability to pay the damage thus caused when the structure is maliciously erected, with the intent to thereby injure the adjacent owner in the use or disposition of his land. That is, the structure substantially serves, and is intended to serve no purpose but to injure the adjacent owner's enjoyment of his land. The intent to injure is to be discovered mainly from the fact that the structure does impair the value of the adjacent land, from the absence of the reasonable possibility of any real advantage, and from the character, location and surroundings of the structure itself.
The plaintiff testified that the fence was erected, first on her property, and then at its present location, after she spoke against the defendant at a zoning hearing. In so doing, he destroyed plantings that the plaintiff had long cared for. She was forced to hire a surveyor. She testified that her property value has diminished, as the fence blocks the view from her windows, and blocks light and air from entering her home.
The defendant appeared at trial through his counsel, but did not attend himself. The Court, therefore, has no evidence before it of the purpose in use or enjoyment of the land that the defendant's structure was to serve. No evidence was offered to counter the plaintiff's assertion that her land was devalued, nor of the defendant's ill will. The Court also finds the plaintiff credible. Thus, the Court having found that the structure impairs the value of the plaintiff's land, and serves, and was erected to serve no purpose in the use and enjoyment of the defendant's land (no evidence having been offered), there is no legal barrier to finding that the structure was indeed maliciously erected. Whitlock, supra. The Court finds for the plaintiff and awards damages of $21,584.55.
Judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiff in this amount.