Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 2801 (2026)

Spite fences

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet in height, maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property, shall be deemed a private nuisance.  
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: Peters v. O'LEARY, 2011 ME 106 (Me. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peters v. O'LEARY, 2011 ME 106 (Me. 2011). · cites it 14× “) found that O'Leary had created a nuisance pursuant to Maine's spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2010), [1] and the common *827 law, and granted injunctive relief to the Peterses.”
Robert L. Rice v. James C. Cook, 2015 ME 49 (Me. 2015). · cites it 5× “The Rices contend that (1) the court erred in finding that the parties did not reach an agreement regarding their common boundary line, (2) the court erred in finding that the Rices’ fences were “unnecessarily high” pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2014) or “unreasonably…”
Wilson v. Handley, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 32-10-10-1 (West 2001); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2801 (West 1964); N.”
Richard Tranfield v. Patricia Arcuni-English, 2019 ME 135 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “) in favor of Richard Tranfield and Karla Doremus-Tranfield (the Tranfields) on their complaint alleging that Arcuni-English’s installation of trees on the parties’ boundary line constituted a nuisance pursuant to both Maine’s spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2018), and…”
Richard Tranfield v. Patricia Arcuni-English, 2019 ME 135 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “) in favor of Richard Tranfield and Karla Doremus-Tranfield (the Tranfields) on their complaint alleging that Arcuni-English’s installation of trees on the parties’ boundary line constituted a nuisance pursuant to both Maine’s spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2018), and…”
Post v. Gale (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 4× “lo Plaintiff's claim under the spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801, is set forth in Count I of their complaint and remains to be adjudicated.”
Walters v. Laverdiere (Me. Super. Ct 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 2808 relating to the 2015 boathouse construction (Count II); statutory nuisance pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2801 alleging the erection of a "spite fence" in 2016 (Count III); common law nuisance relating to the landscaping work done in 2016 (Count IV); statutory nuisance pursuant…”
Fitzpatrick v. Rowell (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “In June 2004, Plaintiff requested permission of this court to add Jan Fitzpatrick as a named plaintiff after discovering that title to the 13 Sand Point Road property was ' 17 M.RS.A. § 2801 (2003). 2 14. M.RS.A. § 7552 (2003).”
Whitehouse v. Wachowski (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “Pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2801, "Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet in height, maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property, shall be deemed a private nuisance.”
Sullivan v. Warren-White (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “In order to establish that a fence is a spite fence under 17 M.R.S. § 2801, there has to be a showing that the fence "unnecessarily" exceeds 6 feet in height and " and is "maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners and occupants of adjoining property.”
Mill Pond Condo. Ass'n v. Manalio (Me. Super. Ct 2010). “" 17 M.R.S.A. §2801. The plaintiff's have complained about signs and posters that have been attached to the fence, items placed on top of the fence, flag poles with flags, and gibbets, exceeding six feet in height, that have been placed behind the fence.”
Peters v. O'Leary (Me. Super. Ct 2010). “THE CLAIMS SPITE FENCE - STATUTORY CLAIM - COUNT I Pursuant to 17 M.R.S.A. §2801, "Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence, unnecessarily exceeding 6 feet in height, maliciously kept and maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining…”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 2801(2010): 1 case
Peters v. O'LEARY, 2011 ME 106 (Me. 2011). “) found that O'Leary had created a nuisance pursuant to Maine's spite fence statute, 17 M.R.S. § 2801 (2010), [1] and the common *827 law, and granted injunctive relief to the Peterses.”
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.