Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.40.030 (2026)

Malicious erection of structure may be enjoined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An injunction may be granted to restrain the malicious erection, by any owner or lessee of land, of any structure intended to spite, injure or annoy an adjoining proprietor. And where any owner or lessee of land has maliciously erected such a structure with such intent, a mandatory injunction will lie to compel its abatement and removal.
[1883 p 44 s 1, part; Code 1881 s 154 1/2; RRS s 720.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Mjd Props., Llc, Resp. v. Jeffrey Haley, App., 358 P.3d 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mjd Props., Llc, Resp. v. Jeffrey Haley, App., 358 P.3d 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “And because a large planted tree, in some *966 circumstances, may be a spite structure prohibited by RCW 7.40.030, we reverse the dismissal of Haley’s statutory claim.”
Baillargeon v. A. G. Press, 521 P.2d 746 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 6× “The suit was founded on the claims that the existing fence constitutes a nuisance and any additional fencing not only would amount to a nuisance but also would violate RCW 7.40.030, the “spite fence” statute. The Baillargeons also claimed a prescriptive right to the boundary…”
McInnes v. Kennell, 286 P.2d 713 (Wash. 1955). “” Thus, RCW 7.40.030 (Rem. Rev. Stat., § 720), the spite structure statute, has no application and we need not consider it.”
Chad Stevens, Appellant/x-resp. v. Bellevue Farm Owners Ass'n, Respondents/x-apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “He further asserted constructing the fence to block his access to the common waterfront was a violation of RCW 7.40.030 17 (counterclaim 3). Stevens also claimed BFOA and the Owner Plaintiffs further violated the 1997 CC&Rs because the changes to the 1997 CC&Rs and erection of…”
Chad Stevens v. Bellevue Farm Owner's Ass'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “He further asserted constructing the fence to block his access to the common waterfront was a violation of RCW 7.40.030 17 (counterclaim 3). Stevens also claimed BFOA and the Owner Plaintiffs further violated the 1997 CC&Rs because the changes to the 1997 CC&Rs and erection of…”
Bellevue Farms,et Al., Appellants/cross-respondents v. Chad Stevens, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “He further asserted constructing the fence to block his access to the common waterfront was a violation of RCW 7.40.030 17 (counterclaim 3). Stevens also claimed BFOA and the Owner Plaintiffs further violated the 1997 CC&Rs because the changes to the 1997 CC&Rs and erection of…”
Mit D. Tilkov, App/cross-res. v. David L. Duncan & Black Pines, Llc, Res/cross-apps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 15× “ng property owners dispute: (1) the existence of individual easements across David Duncan's and Black Pines' properties, benefitting Mit Tilkov, Tibor Gajdics, Kathryn Cotter, Sandra Hulme, and unnamed class members (collectively, "the class members"); and (2) whether certain…”
W. Brandt Bede, Leslie K. Mclaughlin Bede v. Daryl W. Yorek, Kelly M. Yorek, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Trial Court Found Elements Not Met The “spite fence” statute, RCW 7.40.030, provides: An injunction may be granted to restrain the malicious erection, by any owner or lessee of land, of any structure intended to spite, injure or annoy an adjoining proprietor.”
Gael Duran v. David Armstrong & Greg Mosely (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “She alleged that Armstrong's fence encroached on her easement and constituted a maliciously erected structure under RCW 7.40.030 (i.”
Darin & Lisa Chestnut, Respondent/cr-appellants V. Andrew Ko, Appellant/cr-respondent (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “To the contrary, the appellant there sought a determination by the court that the fence was an unreasonable restriction on the easement and asked for a court 10 We note that RCW 7.40.030 provides injunctive relief to restrain the malicious erection of a structure “intended to…”
Devon T. James, App. v. Teresa Ann Wright & Thomas Lee Cartwright, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “12 On May 15, 2009, the trial court upheld Cartwright's counterclaims for violation of RCW 7.40.030 (spite fence statute), violation of RCW 4.”
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.