Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc

I. Light & Air Fontainebleau hotel corp. v. forty-five twenty-five, Inc.                 Shadow of addition will extend over the cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas of Eden Roc Eden Roc constructed one year after other Chancellor entered temporary injunction restraining ∆s from continuing construction  Construction is malicious/deliberate for purpose of injury Eden roc, but scarcely sufficient standing alone to afford basis for equitable relief Maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas:  One must use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another  Not that one must never use his own property in a way as to do injury to neighbor English doctrine of “ancient lights” has been unanimously repudiated in this country No legal right to the free flow of light and air from the adjoining land, universally held that there where a structure serves a useful & beneficial purpose, it does not give rise to a cause of action, even though it causes injury to another by cutting off the light & air & interfering w/ the view that would otherwise be available (even if partly for spite) Order granting temporary injunction is reverses & dismiss complaint:  Judicial legislation notes adjoining landowners have an equal right under the law to build to the line of their tracts & to such a height as is desired by them (universal rule)  Exception would be building restrictions or regulations Prah v. Maretti Issue: 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 (conforms to existing deed restrictions & local ordinances) interferes with his access to an unobstructed path for sunlight across neighbor’s property? Π (Prah) owner of residence constructed during years 1978-79 Π advised ∆ that house built at proposed location would substantially & adversely affect integrity of solar system & cause π further damage ∆ began construction anyway & complaint alleges π is entitle to “unrestricted use of the sun & its solar power” & demands judgment for injunctive relief & damages State has long recognized owner of land does not have an absolute or unlimited right to use land in a way which injures rights of others  When one landowner’s use of his/her property unreasonably interferes with another’s enjoyment of his/her property, use is said to be a private nuisance o Private Nuisance: “a non-trespassory invasion of another’s interest in private use & enjoyment of land” (Restatement 2nd) ∆ asks court to hold private nuisance doctrine is not applicable to this case & that his right to develop his land is a right which is per se superior to his neighbor’s interest in access to sunlight  Maxim “cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos: o Owner of land owns up to the sky & down to the center of the earth o Rights of surface owner are not unlimited English common law, landowner could acquire right to receive sunlight across adjoining land by both express agreement & under judge-made doctrine of “ancient lights” “Doctrine of ancient lights”: if landowner had received sunlight across adjoining property for specified period of time, landowner was entitled to continue to receive unobstructed access to sunlight  Landowner acquired negative prescriptive e3asement & could prevent adjoining owner from obstructing access to light American court aren’t as receptive as English courts, but have afforded some protection to owner’s interest  Honor express easements to sunlight  Repudiated “ancient lights” doctrine because it is inconsistent with needs of a developing country  Court concluded easement to light & air over adjacent property could not be created or acquired by prescription & has been unwilling to recognize such an easement by implication        Notes 1.  2.  CL private nuisance doctrine- if an activity is motivated by malice it lacks utility & harm it causes others outweighs any social values (protects sunlight under narrow context of modern American rule invalidating spite fences) Reasons for court’s reluctance in protecting landowner’s access to sunlight (now rejected): 1) Right of owners to use their property as wished, as long as they did not cause physical damage to neighbor, was jealously guarded o Society has increasingly regulated use of land by owner for general welfare 2) Sunlight was valued only for aesthetic enjoyment or as illumination (could use artificial light) o Access to sunlight as an energy source is significant both to owner who invests in solar collectors & to society which has an interest in developing alternative sources of energy 3) Society had a significant interest in not restricting/impeding land development o Need for easy & rapid development is not as great today as once was & value of sunlight as a source of energy has increased significantly Court recognized in Deetz (surface water case) that CL rules adapt to changing social values & conditions Private nuisance law has flexibility to protect both a owner’s right of access to sunlight & other owner’s right to develop land  Better suited to regulate access to sunlight in modern society & is more in harmony with legislative policy & the prior decisions of this court than is an inflexible doctrine of nonrecognition of any interest in access to sunlight across adjoining land  Promotes the reasonable use & enjoyment of land in a manner suitable to the 1980s  Outcome depends on whether conduct complained of is unreasonable CC concluded ∆s proposed house was in conformity w/ zoning regulations, building codes 7 deed restrictions, ∆s use of land was reasonable  Landowner’s compliance w/ zoning laws does not automatically bar a nuisance claim Π stated a claim of CL private nuisance upon which relief can be granted, judgment of CC must be reversed  Consider the following for summary judgment: o Extent of the harm to π, suitability of solar heat in that neighborhood, availability of remedies to π, costs to ∆ of avoiding the harm, etc. Dissenting opinion:  Doesn’t agree that the three policies above are obsolete  Π could have acquired the land since he knew of the problem when he built  Could have built in another location of the property  Solar energy for home heating is sparingly used & questionable economic value (limited efficiency may explain lack of production)  Argues policy arguments may be directed to cause of action for public nuisance & we are presented w/ a private nuisance case  Argues this decision is an intrusion of judicial egoism over legislative passivity  Believes π’s solar heating system is an unusually sensitive use & ∆’s conduct is not “intentional & unreasonable” like it must be for a nuisance claim  House plan is w/in the applicable building, municipal, & deed restrictions  Believes inaction by π should be a significant factor determining cause of action Light and air Majority of US courts would hold in absence of an agreement to the contrary, owners have absolute rights to develop their property w/o liability for interference w/ their neighbor’s interests in light & air  No easement exists for light & air unless a contract creates it  Exception = some courts will enjoin “spite fences” (structures erected for sole purpose of maliciously harming neighbor by interfering w/ access to sunlight)  New Hampshire joined Wisconsin SC in using nuisance doctrine to adjudicate conflicts over light & air (held not nuisance since still could get some light) Solar shade statutes CA passes statute called Solar Shade Control Act:  Amended to not apply to trees planted prior to installation of solar collector