Law Students

Trees vs. Solar

By Casebook Sherpa

The Law of Nuisance (caution: wikipedia link) is on tap for Property class this week - at what point do someone’s actions which disrupt the quiet enjoyment of your own property form the basis for a cause of action?

Several notes in our casebook dealt with the issue of light invading someone’s use of their own property. A fairground next to a drive-in theater, for instance, may emit so much light that it hinders the quality of pictures projected onto the screen next door (though generally, it doesn’t).

What about shade though? The courts are generally split on whether someone’s trees which grow tall enough to prevent the sun from hitting their neighbor’s solar panels. Some courts find nuisance where it is so severe that it outweighs the benefit of having the trees (See e.g. Prah v. Maretti, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982)). Though other courts may only find nuisance where malice is the overriding motive for letting the trees grow so tall (See e.g. Sher v. Leiderman, 226 Cal. Rptr. 698 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)).

While the common law may not provide remedy in such a situation, a statute may classify it as nuisance. That’s what this lawsuit is all about:

SAN JOSE, CALIF. ? Talk about a clash of cherished green values.

In a case with statewide significance, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office is pursuing a Sunnyvale couple under a little-known California law because redwood trees in their backyard cast a shadow over their neighbor’s solar panels.

Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett own a Prius and consider themselves environmentalists. But they refuse to cut down any of the trees behind their house on Benton Street, saying they’ve done nothing wrong.

[…]

Their neighbor Mark Vargas considers himself an environmentalist, too. His 10-kilowatt solar system, which he installed in 2001, is so big he pays only about $60 a year in electrical bills. He drives an electric car.

Vargas said he first asked Treanor and Bissett to chop down the eight redwoods, which the couple had planted from 1997 to 1999 along the fence separating their yards. Later, he asked them to trim the trees to about 15 feet.

“I offered to pay for the removal of the trees. I said let’s try to work something out,” Vargas said. “They said no to everything.”

He installed the panels.

After several years of squabbling and failed mediation, Vargas filed a complaint with the Santa Clara County district attorney arguing that the trees reduce the amount of electricity he can generate. In 2005, prosecutors agreed.They sent Treanor and Bissett a letter informing them that they were in violation of California’s Solar Shade Control Act and that if they didn’t “abate the violation” within 30 days, they would face fines of up to $1,000 a day.

Mr. Treanor and Ms. Bissett are the first convicted of violations of the Solar Shade Control Act which “grants certain protections to owners of solar collectors” provided, among other things, the trees substantially block the solar collectors when the sun is highest in the sky (10 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.) and was the tree planted after the solar collector was installed or after January 1, 1979.

Full post as published by Fight The Hypo on February 11, 2008 (boomark / email).