Prah v. Maretti, 321 N.W.2d 182

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

1982

Chapter

28

Title

Nuisance

Page

564

Topic

New house construction is obstructing sunlight

Quick Notes

Glenn Prah, a landowner, received all of his energy from solar panels on the proper.  Richard Maretti, the adjoining land owner, constructed a house which affected Glenns solar panels.  Richard constructed the house despite Glenns concerns.

Law of private nuisance - comparative evaluation

o         Requires the court to make "a comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests and to weigh the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the utility of the defendant's conduct."

Rule Private Nuisance

o         When one landowner's use of his or her property unreasonably interferes with another's enjoyment of his or her property, that use is said to be a private nuisance.

The Restatement defines private nuisance

o         A nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land." 

Interest

o         The phrase "interest in the private use and enjoyment of land" is broadly defined to include any disturbance of the enjoyment of property.

Court - Reasoning

o         Private nuisance law, that is, the reasonable use doctrine as set forth in the Restatement, is applicable to the instant case.

o         Recognition of a nuisance claim for unreasonable obstruction of access to sunlight will not prevent land development or unduly hinder the use of adjoining land.

o         It will promote the reasonable use and enjoyment of land in a manner suitable to the 1980's.

Ease Case is different

o         That obstruction of access to light might be found to constitute a nuisance in certain circumstances does not mean that it will be or must be found to constitute a nuisance under all circumstances.

o         The result in each case depends on whether the conduct complained of is unreasonable.

Book Name

Fundamentals of Modern Property Law: Rabin; Kwall, Kwall.  ISBN:  978-1-59941-053-1.

Issue

o         Whether an owner of a solar-heated residence states a claim upon which relief can be granted when he asserts that his neighbor's proposed construction of a residence (which conforms to existing deed restrictions and local ordinances) interferes with his access to an unobstructed path for sunlight across the neighbor's property.

Procedure

Circuit

o         The circuit court concluded that the plaintiff presented no claim upon which relief could be granted and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Supreme

o         We reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Facts/Cases/Policy

Discussion

Reasoning/Key Phrase

Rules

Pl -  Prah

Df -  Maretti

Description

o         Case of first impression

o         This case thus involves a conflict between one landowner (Glenn Prah, the plaintiff) interested in unobstructed access to sunlight across adjoining property as a natural source of energy and an adjoining landowner (Richard D. Maretti,  the defendant) interested in the development of his land.

Circuit Court For Defendant

o         The circuit court concluded that the plaintiff presented no claim upon which relief could be granted and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Supreme Court - Reversed

o         We reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Pl - Complaint

o         First residence built.

o         Not in center of lot, but in accordance with restrictions.

o         When Pl learned of Df - construction plans, the Pl advised the Df that his plans would substantially and adversely affect the integrity of the solar system and would cause other damage.

         Failed to reach an agreement

o         Moved for a temporary injunction to restrain and enjoin construction.

Df - Plans were approved

o         Architectural Control Committee.

Df changed Grade of Property

o         Did notice the committee of change.

Pl - Arg

o         The combination of the grade and distance of the Df - house cause the Pl - problems.

Law of private nuisance - comparative evaluation

o         Requires the court to make "a comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests and to weigh the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the utility of the defendant's conduct."

The circuit court concluded

o         A comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests, keeping in mind the omissions and commissions of both Prah and Maretti, indicates that defendant's conduct does not cause the gravity of the harm which the plaintiff himself may well have avoided by proper planning." 

Whether the complaint states a claim for relief based on common law private nuisance - Analysis

Rule Private Nuisance

o         When one landowner's use of his or her property unreasonably interferes with another's enjoyment of his or her property, that use is said to be a private nuisance.

The Restatement defines private nuisance

o         A nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land." 

Interest

o         The phrase "interest in the private use and enjoyment of land" is broadly defined to include any disturbance of the enjoyment of property.

Restatement Comments

o         "The phrase 'interest in the use and enjoyment of land' is used in this Restatement in a broad sense.

o         It comprehends not only the interests that a person may have in the actual present use of land for residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial and other purposes, but also his interests in having the present use value of the land unimpaired by changes in its physical condition.

o         Thus the destruction of trees on vacant land is as much an invasion of the owner's interest in its use and enjoyment as is the destruction of crops or flowers that he is growing on the land for his present use.

o         'Interest in use and enjoyment' also comprehends the pleasure, comfort and enjoyment that a person normally derives from the occupancy of land.

o         Freedom from discomfort and annoyance while using land is often as important to a person as freedom from physical interruption with his use or freedom from detrimental change in the physical condition of the land itself."

English Ancient Lights Doctrine

American Court Repudiated Ancient Lights Doctrine

Malicious Obstruction of Sun Light

o         If an activity is motivated by malice it lacks utility and the harm it causes others outweighs any social values.

Legislature against spite fence

o         Enacted a law specifically defining a spite fence as an actionable private nuisance.

Circuit Courts Reasoning - Three Reluctance Policy Concerns Now Obsolete

1.     First, the right of landowners to use their property as they wished, as long as they did not cause physical damage to a neighbor, was jealously guarded.

2.     Second, sunlight was valued only for aesthetic enjoyment or as illumination.

a.     Since artificial light could be used for illumination, loss of sunlight was at most a personal annoyance which was given little, if any, weight by society.

3.     Third, society had a significant interest in not restricting or impeding land development.

a.     This court repeatedly emphasized that in the growth period of the nineteenth and early twentieth centurys change is to be expected and is essential to property and that recognition of a right to sunlight would hinder property development.

New Policy Concerns

1.     First, society has increasingly regulated the use of land by the landowner for the general welfare.

2.     Second, access to sunlight has taken on a new significance in recent years.

a.     In this case the plaintiff seeks to protect access to sunlight, not for aesthetic reasons or as a source of illumination but as a source of energy.

b.    Access to sunlight as an energy source is of significance both to the landowner who invests in solar collectors and to a society which has an interest in developing alternative sources of energy.

3.     Third, the policy of favoring unhindered private development in an expanding economy is no longer in harmony with the realities of our society.

a.     The need for easy and rapid development is not as great today as it once was, while our perception of the value of sunlight as a source of energy has increased significantly

Court - Private nuisance law

Flexible

o         The law traditionally used to adjudicate conflicts between private landowners, has the flexibility to protect both a landowner's right of access to sunlight and another landowner's right to develop land.

In Harmony with modern society, legislative policy and prior decisions

o         Private nuisance law is better suited to regulate access to sunlight in modern society and is more in harmony with legislative policy and the prior decisions of this court than is an inflexible doctrine of non-recognition of any interest in access to sunlight across adjoining land.

Court - Reasoning

o         Private nuisance law, that is, the reasonable use doctrine as set forth in the Restatement, is applicable to the instant case.

o         Recognition of a nuisance claim for unreasonable obstruction of access to sunlight will not prevent land development or unduly hinder the use of adjoining land.

o         It will promote the reasonable use and enjoyment of land in a manner suitable to the 1980's.

Ease Case is different

o         That obstruction of access to light might be found to constitute a nuisance in certain circumstances does not mean that it will be or must be found to constitute a nuisance under all circumstances.

o         The result in each case depends on whether the conduct complained of is unreasonable.

Court Holding

o         The Plaintiff has stated a claim.

o         Circuit Court is reversed.

DISSENT Justice Callow

o         A solar collector was an unusually sensitive use, and thus not protected by private nuisance.

Rules

Law of private nuisance - comparative evaluation

o         Requires the court to make "a comparative evaluation of the conflicting interests and to weigh the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff against the utility of the defendant's conduct."

Rule Private Nuisance

o         When one landowner's use of his or her property unreasonably interferes with another's enjoyment of his or her property, that use is said to be a private nuisance.

The Restatement defines private nuisance

o         A nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land." 

Interest

o         The phrase "interest in the private use and enjoyment of land" is broadly defined to include any disturbance of the enjoyment of property.

Class Notes