( Wilson v. Handley )

Neighbors are usually friendly. However, there are some neighbors who cannot get along with each other. This interesting case involves 2 neighbors, Wilson and Handley, and a row of trees.

Can a row of trees be considered a fence (i.e. a structure)? This is the issue a California Court of Appeal has to decide.

Wilson planned to build a 2-story log cabin on her property. On learning about Wilson's plan, Handley build a row of evergreen trees between the 2 properties. The trees are about 10 feet from the property line; some are closer but most are further. After completion of the house, Wilson sued Handley claiming that if the trees are allowed to grow, they will block Wilson's view of Mount Shasta. Therefore, the trees are a spite fence as defined by California statute Section 841.1.

The trial court finds for Handley. " ... Trees are neither built nor constructed. They grow ... ". Trees cannot be built or constructed. Therefore, if trees grow naturally and are not trimmed or pruned, they can never be a structure or a fence.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The question is: whether a row of trees, not just a single tree can be a structure. Webster dictionary defines a structure by definition as something arranged in a definite pattern or organization. Arranging trees in a row is structure. Therefore, it is a fence.

Therefore, the case is returned to the Trial court and the Trial court must try the case again to find out whether Handley has any other purposes in building the fence other than annoying Wilson, the neighbor.

Questions to consider:

How about a single tree?
How about 2 trees?
How about 10 trees planted here and there?
How about a forest?