Neighbors Dispute Over View-Blocking Trees

In California there is no state law that protects views. It is not, though, illegal for local jurisdictions to enact such provisions. Some municipalities do have view-protection ordinances. Similarly, some private, common-interest developments contain view-protection regulations in their CC&Rs. In general, though, if a neighbor's structure or trees block your view, too bad. Such matters usually must be left to cooperation and/or moral persuasion. Usually.

"There's more than one way to skin a cat", the old saying goes, and there's more than one way to utilize the law when your neighbor blocks your view. Consider the recently decided case of Vanderpol v. Starr from California's 4th Appellate District Court of Appeal.

The Starrs purchased their Carlsbad home in 1998. In 2000, the Vanderpols purchased their residence, upslope from the Starrs. Both homes have ocean views. When the Vanderpols purchased their home, they noticed that there were eucalyptus trees on the Starrs property below. At that time the trees did not block the view. Moreover, the previous owner told them that there was an arrangement for the Starrs to keep the trees trimmed to heights that would not disrupt the view.

In 2001, Mr. Vanderpol approached the Starrs about trimming the trees, which, at the Vanderpols' cost, they did. The trees were trimmed back to a uniform height of 14 feet. The next year the trees were trimmed again in the same manner. Then, in mid-July of 2004, Mr. Vanderpol again contacted the Starrs regarding the tree trimming. This time there was some dispute about how they would be trimmed, and the discussion escalated into name-calling and alleged threats.

Not only were the trees not trimmed in 2004, but the Starrs began to plant more trees along the properties' common border. Lots of them. They planted at least 20 pine trees and 65 Italian Cypress. The trees grew. In 2007 the Vanderpols' attorney requested that the trees be trimmed, but to no avail. In 2009 the Vanderpols sued. They alleged a cause of action for private nuisance under California's "spite fence" statute, Civil Code section 841.14.

At trial, the jury found that the Starrs were "maliciously maintaining trees that unnecessarily exceed 10 feet for the dominant purpose of annoying [the Vanderpols]." Moreover, the jury also found that the Starrs' conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the Vanderpols. An expert witness had testified that the obstruction of view had resulted in a $57,000 loss of value to the property.

The trial court enjoined the Starrs from maintaining any of their trees along the property line "at a height in excess of fifteen feet, nine inches, when measured from the base of the tree to the top of the tree, for a period of more than thirty (30) consecutive days". The court ruled that the Vanderpols would not get the $57,000, because the view would be restored.

The Starrs appealed.

On "the threshold issue" the appellate court ruled that the trees did, indeed, meet the statutory definition of a spite fence. In doing so it reviewed former cases and the history of spite fence statutes enacted in the early 1900s which declared it "...a private nuisance to maliciously erect or maintain 'any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding ten feet in height...for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupants of adjoining property'..."

On technical reasons the appellate court also found that the trial had not shown that the Vanderpols had sustained "injury in their comfort or the enjoyment of [their] estate by such nuisance", and, because of that, the injunction was unwarranted under the statute. The case was remanded for further trial on that issue. It's pretty clear that the Vanderpols will prevail.

"Good fences make good neighbors" the poet, Robert Frost, once told us. Apparently, the converse is also true.

Written by Bob Hunt for www.RealtyTimes.com Copyright © 2011 Realty Times All Rights Reserved.