Bennett v. Hill
Annotate this CaseThis case concerned a wall that Defendants constructed near a border shared by property owned by Plaintiffs, owners of lots in a subdivision. Plaintiffs sued Defendants claiming that the wall was constructed in violation of the subdivision’s “Declaration of Restrictions” and constituted a nuisance and a spite fence. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and awarded Defendants attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the wall constituted a spite fence or violated the Restrictions; (2) the district court's reasoning on the issue of whether the wall constituted a nuisance was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law; and (3) the district court, therefore, erred in awarding attorney fees to Defendants.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.