The problem: Let us assume you are a landscape contractor and you are asked to build a fence for a homeowner consisting of a row of trees to serve as a nice privacy barrier between adjoining lots. Let us further assume the homeowner casually mentions that he wants to be sure to block the view of his backyard neighbor just to ?EUR??,,????'??get even?EUR??,,????'?? for something the neighbor did. You need to be a little careful when you are asked to build a fence with a row of trees just to get back at the neighbor, even aside from the Golden Rule. The problem may even go beyond negligence into conspiracy so that your errors and omissions insurance doesn?EUR??,,????'???t apply, leaving you high and dry for paying damages out of your pocket! And you could even be forced to remove the trees. A 2002 case in California was decided by the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, concerning California?EUR??,,????'???s ?EUR??,,????'??spite fence?EUR??,,????'?? law, Civil Code ?????? 1/4 841.4. Although each state?EUR??,,????'???s laws are different, the case is interesting from a liability point of view, including the landscape contractor who may be liable if he knows about the motive involved and is a party to the conspiracy. First of all the facts. The case is entitled, Wendy Wilson v. Leon Handley. The citation is 97 Cal.App.4th 1301 (2002). The opinion is dated May 1, 2002. You can find it at www.findlaw.com. Go to that free website and then click on laws:cases and codes. Then go to US State Laws, followed by California and its Cases and Codes. Under ?EUR??,,????'??state?EUR??,,????'?? click on California Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Opinions and enter the citation above noted or docket number CO383341 and click ?EUR??,,????'??get it.?EUR??,,????'?? Wendy and Leon were neighbors in Yreka, California. When Wendy began building a two-story log house on her property close to the property line, Leon planted a row of evergreen trees along the property line. Seventeen of the trees were Leland cypresses, as you know a hybrid specifically designed for screening barriers and windbreaks. Afraid that the tall trees would block her view of beautiful Mt. Shasta, Windy filed suit to require Leon to remove the trees. Plaintiff Wendy relied in part on California?EUR??,,????'???s spite fence statute, Civil Code ?????? 1/4 841.4: ?EUR??,,????'??Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence unnecessarily exceeding 10 feet in height maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupant of adjoining property is a private nuisance. Any owner or occupant of adjoining property injured either in his comfort or the enjoyment of his estate by such nuisance may enforce the remedies against its continuance. . .?EUR??,,????'?? The court first addressed the question of whether a row of growing trees can be a structure, and the court concluded that it can. ?EUR??,,????'??Although, to paraphrase a famous poem (Kilmer [1914] ?EUR??,,????'??Trees?EUR??,,????'???) only God can construct a tree, any enterprising individual with a shovel and some saplings can construct a row of trees by simply planting the saplings in their proper place and order?EUR??,,????'??+in other words, in a row.?EUR??,,????'?? The next question the court addressed was whether a row of trees planted on or near the boundary line between adjoining parcels of land can be a ?EUR??,,????'??fence or other structure in the nature of a fence?EUR??,,????'??. The court had no difficulty in finding that a row of trees planted on or near the boundary line between adjoining parcels of land can be a ?EUR??,,????'??fence or other structure in the nature of a fence.?EUR??,,????'?? Although the defendant, Leon, relied on the general view that in California there is no recognized property right in a view in California, the court noted that none of those cases cited involved the spite fence statute. Finally, the court noted that one of the key questions was whether the dominant purpose of the row of trees was for spite or annoying the neighbor. If so, the defendant may have a liability problem. So, landscape contractors might want to at least inquire as to whether the proposed row of trees will be in retaliation for anything the neighbors have done, just to be sure that there is no problem. This is, of course, in addition to complying with all zoning regulations, set back requirements, and covenants, conditions and restrictions.