Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 2. PROPERTY / PART 2. REAL OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY [[755.] - 945.5.] / TITLE 3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF OWNERS / CHAPTER 2. Obligations of Owners
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 841.4 (2026)

Obligations of Owners

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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 prescribed in Title 3, Part 3, Division 4 of this code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Wilson v. Handley, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. Handley, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs relied in part on California’s spite fence statute (Civ. Code, § 841.4), which declares that any “fence or other structure in the nature of a fence” that unnecessarily exceeds 10 feet in height and is maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying a…”
Dowdell v. Bloomquist, 847 A.2d 827 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 2× “" Cal. Civil Code § 841.4 (West 1982). [9] General Laws 1938 ch.”
Sher v. Leiderman, 181 Cal. App. 3d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “8 In addition to the cause of action discussed in this section, demurrers were sustained as to the Shers’ third cause of action (“Spite Fence”: Civ. Code § 841.4) and fourth cause of action (“Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”).”
Zimmer v. Dykstra, 39 Cal. App. 3d 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974). “4: “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.”
William Blackwell v. William Lucas, 271 So. 3d 638 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The court found that the odors were “almost impossible of description” and ordered the plant to take steps to prevent them.”
Vanderpol v. Starr, No. D062350 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2014). · cites it 5× “In this appeal, the Vanderpols contend the trial court, following a new bench trial, erroneously applied the "dominant purpose" test to determine the requisite malice under Civil Code section 841.4 by focusing on the current condition of the Starrs' trees even though the Starrs…”
Wolfson v. Gevorgian, No. B317054 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2023). “” In October 2018, the Wolfsons filed a lawsuit against the Gevorgians alleging four causes of action, all based on the cypress trees: (1) private nuisance; (2) spite fence under state law (Civ. Code, § 841.4);4 (3) spite fence under municipal law (LAMC, 4 Unless otherwise…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.