Archive | Spite fence

RSS feed for this section

Bennett v. Hill

Bennett v. Hill, 2015 MT 30 (Feb. 3, 2015) (Wheat, J.) (5-0, rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on whether the wall was a spite fence; (2) whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on whether the wall was a nuisance; (3) whether the wall violated the subdivision restrictions; and (4) whether the district court properly awarded attorneys’ fees to defendants.

Short Answer: (1) No; (2) no; (3) genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment and (4) attorneys’ fees are reversed because defendants are no longer the prevailing party.

Reversed and remanded

Facts: Plaintiffs own lots in the Lake Hills Subdivision. Defendant Lake Hills Golf, LLC, also owns a lot in the subdivision, which is adjacent to plaintiffs’ properties.…