The Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld a jury verdict that a row of sixteen to eighteen foot arborvitaes planted to block a neighbor’s water view violated the state spite fence law. But the court vacated a follow up order that barred the neighbor from blocking the view “in any manner,” because it was too broad. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
Two Onset neighbors had a long dispute. One couple built a new home with a deck overlooking the other neighbor’s yard toward Onset Bay. There was testimony that, during construction, the neighbor said she would put up bamboo so the couple would not have a view. Over the next few years she planted bamboo, then installed posts with fifteen foot tarps she raised when home, and, after the town required the tarps removed under its zoning by-laws, planted sixteen to eighteen foot arborvitaes along the line, tallest where they blocked the view. A jury found for the couple on the spite fence claim, and the judge ordered the trees removed, later narrowing that to the first six trees that blocked the view. When the neighbor replaced those trees with a large retractable umbrella, the judge entered a clarification order barring her from blocking the view in any manner.
What the court decided
In Lawrence v. DeMichele, No. 25-P-1330 (Mass. App. Ct. August 7, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision), the court affirmed the judgment and the denial of a new trial, vacated the clarification order, and sent that order back to be reconsidered.
The spite fence law. A fence or structure in the nature of a fence that unnecessarily exceeds six feet and is maliciously erected or maintained to annoy the neighbors is a private nuisance. G.L. c. 49, § 21. Malevolence must be the dominant motive, one without which the fence would not have been built. Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. 368, 373 (1889). And if the extra height is truly necessary for any reason, there is no liability. Id.
Enough evidence of spite. The jury heard the neighbor’s statements about blocking the view, her complaints about the new house, and evidence the trees were taller where they blocked the view. She testified her purpose was privacy. But on a motion for directed verdict, the question is only whether the evidence could support the verdict, and it could. Her argument that the height was necessary was waived because she did not raise it in her directed verdict motion, and in any event there was enough evidence on that point too.
Old quarrels were fair evidence. Testimony about years of earlier conflict between the families was relevant to motive. Retaliation can carry weight in deciding whether conduct was meant to harm a neighbor. Rattigan v. Wile, 445 Mass. 850, 858 (2006). The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a new trial.
The judge could act during the appeal. Normally a trial court cannot modify a judgment once an appeal is docketed. Quinn v. Gjoni, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 408, 411 (2016). But the court held that the civil rules let a trial judge modify an injunction while an appeal of it is pending, and that in the particular circumstances here, acting quickly on an emergency motion was within the judge’s discretion.
But the order went too far. Barring the neighbor from blocking the view in any manner could chill lawful use of her own property. An overly broad injunction between feuding neighbors can sweep in reasonable conduct. Rattigan, 445 Mass. at 863-864. The court sent the order back so the judge could modify it to avoid unduly burdening lawful activity, suggesting an order aimed at unreasonable interference with the view from the one deck at issue.
What this means for you
A spite fence does not have to be a wooden fence. In this case, the jury applied the law to a row of tall trees. The appeal did not raise, and the court did not decide, whether plantings always count as a fence. If a neighbor puts up something over six feet mainly to annoy you, and the height serves no real need, the law may give you a claim.
Motive is everything. The strongest evidence here came from the neighbor’s own words and from the pattern: bamboo, then tarps, then trees, with the trees tallest right where they blocked the view. Privacy is a legitimate reason, and if the height is really necessary for any reason, there is no liability.
Even a winning neighbor gets an order tailored to the actual harm, not a ban on every use of the other’s land.
What to do now
- Measure and photograph the structure or plantings, with dates, from your property.
- Write down any statements your neighbor makes about why they put it up, and who heard them.
- Check whether your town’s zoning by-law limits fence or structure height.
- Keep your own conduct calm and lawful, since your behavior will be evidence too.
- Talk to a lawyer before trimming or removing anything on the property line.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. These cases move on short deadlines.
