DOWDELL V. BLOOMQUIST 847 A.2d 827 (2004) CASE BRIEF

DOWDELL V. BLOOMQUIST

847 A.2d 827 (2004)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Dowdell (P) sued Bloomquist (D) seeking legal and equitable relief after D planted four trees on his property which P alleged were to exact revenge against her, to retaliate by blocking her view, and in violation of the spite fence statute, R.I. Gen. Laws 34-10-20 (1956). The Superior Court granted P injunctive relief. D appealed.

FACTS: D petitioned for a zoning variance from the Charlestown zoning board seeking permission to build a second-story addition to his home. P expressed concern about the petition, anxious that the addition would compromise her view of the Atlantic Ocean. The relationship between the neighbors became less than friendly. D began clearing land and digging holes to plant the disputed trees in a row between their homes. One day after the zoning board closed its hearing on D's variance request, D began planting the four western arborvitae trees that now stand in a row bordering the property line. P sued D alleging that D planted four western arborvitae trees on his property solely to exact revenge against her, to retaliate by blocking her view, and in violation of the spite fence statute. P sought legal and equitable relief. The judge found that the trees were planted to satisfy D's malicious intent, not his pretextual desire for privacy, and that D had violated 34-10-20. The trial justice granted P injunctive relief. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner