An injunction may be granted against the malicious erection, by or with the consent of an owner, lessee or person entitled to the possession of land, of any structure upon it, intended to annoy and injure any owner or lessee of adjacent land in respect to his use or disposition of the same.
(1949 Rev., S. 8216.)
See Sec. 52-570 re action for malicious erection of structure.
When no defense that structure screens respondents' premises. 46 C. 109. Injunction may be granted against the continuance of structure erected in violation of statute. Id., 108. The malicious purpose must be the predominant one and give character to the act. 48 C. 395. The malicious acts intended by statute must, as a rule, go beyond the petty hostilities of business competition. Id., 395. History, purpose and scope of remedy. 75 C. 425; 102 C. 357. Finding that erection malicious not ordinarily reviewable. 82 C. 290. That fence is being constructed by independent contractor is no defense to proceedings for contempt for violation of temporary injunction by continuing erection. 102 C. 358. On finding, plaintiff held not entitled to relief under section for building of wall and change of grade. 132 C. 319. Equitable defense of “clean hands” available but not applicable to facts; it was abuse of trial courts' discretion to enjoin building of any other structures on that portion of land from which court ordered removal of fence. 174 C. 29.
Cited. 46 CA 164. Uselessness prong of six-factor test in Whitlock v. Uhle, 75 C. 423, focuses on whether structure serves an actual use, not whether defendants can merely assert a purpose for erecting the structure. 185 CA 119.
Cited. 13 CS 25. Injunctive relief presupposes an emergency. 15 CS 455. Elements necessary to state a cause of action under section enumerated. 21 CS 110. A hedge is not a “structure” within the meaning of malicious structure statutes. 47 CS 645. Testimony credible that fence was erected, in part, for legitimate purpose of safeguarding children and dogs; essential elements of cause of action under section are (1) structure erected on defendant's land, (2) malicious erection of structure, (3) intent to injure enjoyment of adjacent landowner's land by erection of structure, (4) impairment of value of adjacent land because of structure, (5) structure is useless to defendant, and (6) enjoyment of adjacent landowner's land is in fact impaired. 51 CS 399.
Provides for injunctive relief for structures constructed with intention to annoy and injure plaintiff's use of premises. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 427, 428.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case:
Geiger v. Carey, 154 A.3d 1093 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Geiger v. Carey, 154 A.3d 1093 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 9× “In the revised complaint, the plaintiffs allege malicious erection by the defendant of the fence between the two properties and cite § 52-570.”
Chase & Chase, LLC v. Waterbury Realty, LLC, 50 A.3d 968 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 7× “” The court also found for the plaintiff on its malicious erection of a fence count, explaining that the plaintiff proved the necessary elements under General Statutes § 52-480. Specifically, the court found: (1) the defendant erected a fence that “was useless to it”; (2) the…”
Dowdell v. Bloomquist, 847 A.2d 827 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “645, § 20 closely mirrors the language of § 34-10-20 and provided the following: "A fence, or other structure in the nature of a fence, which unnecessarily exceeds 6 feet in height, and is maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of…”
Errichetti v. Botoff, 196 A.3d 1199 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 20× “The defendants, Daniel Botoff and Laura Botoff, appeal from the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Michael Errichetti, entering an injunction pursuant to General Statutes § 52-480, 1 which required the defendants to remove the fence that they had…”
Dalton v. Bua, 822 A.2d 392 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Is a hedge a “structure”? That question is presented by the motion to strike now before the court in a case alleging violation of Connecticut’s “malicious structure” statutes, General Statutes §§ 52-480 and 52-570. For reasons briefly set forth below, the answer to the question…”
Jackson v. Lee, 996 A.2d 762 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 6× “The court held that the essential elements are: “(1) a structure erected on the owner’s [defendant’s] land; (2) a malicious erection of the structure; (3) the intention to injure the enjoyment of the adjacent landowner’s land by the erection of the structure; (4) an impairment…”
DeCecco v. Beach, 381 A.2d 543 (Conn. 1977).
“” 3 The defendant argues in her brief that “[t]hese sections [§§ 52-480 and 52-570 of .the General Statutes] do not provide owners with the right to assert visual easements over neighboring properties.”
Davis v. Prop. Owners Assn. at Moodus Lake Shores, Inc., 193 A.3d 1245 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “" 5 General Statutes § 52-480 provides: "An injunction may be granted against the malicious erection, by or with the consent of an owner, lessee or person entitled to the possession of land, of any structure upon it, intended to annoy and injure any owner or lessee of adjacent…”
Francini v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 174 A.3d 779 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff's amended complaint omitted the claim alleging the creation of an easement by implication, retained the claim alleging the creation of an easement by necessity, and added claims alleging a violation of General Statutes § 52-480, negligence, nuisance, and…”
Foldeak v. Incerto, 274 A.2d 724 (Conn. App. Ct. 1970).
· cites it 5× “In their complaint the plaintiffs set forth two counts and rely on General Statutes §§ 52-480 and 52-570. The second count will be considered under part II and alleges a spite fence.”
Whelan v. Brestelli, 230 Conn. App. 683 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 11× “3 General Statutes § 52-480 provides: ‘‘An injunction may be granted against the malicious erection, by or with the consent of an owner, lessee or person entitled to the possession of land, of any structure upon it, intended to annoy and injure any owner or lessee of adjacent…”
Hamer v. Byrne, 231 Conn. App. 53 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 5× “Held: The trial court did not err in rendering judgment for M on the plaintiffs’ cause of action asserting the erection of an alleged spite fence, as the court properly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proof with respect to all of the elements…”
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.