Somath Hasina 9/30/12 Econ 495, 1:30 Section

Pram (p) v. Martini (d), Minnesota (1982)

FACTS:

The plaintiff, Pram, is the owner of the first home built in his subdivision, which was constructed between the years 1978 and 1979. The plaintiff’s home includes a solar system unit that collects sunlight to supply energy for heat and hot water to the house. The defendant, Martini, bought the lot immediately south of the plaintiffs, and began planning the building of a house that follows the guidelines set by the Architectural Control Committee of the subdivision, and of the Planning Commission of the City of Muskego. However, the defendant is said to have changed the grade of his home without notifying the aforementioned groups. The plaintiff alleges that both the placement of the defendant’s home and the change in grade will adversely affect the efficiency of the solar energy system situated on his residence due to a shadowing effect.

The plaintiff informed the defendant of the possible ill effects of his construction plan, and requested that the defendant build his house further away and change his grade, however they were unable to reach a settlement. Due to this, the plaintiff requests an temporary injunction to the construction of the defendant’s home until necessary changes have been made to the grade and distance of the home so as not to affect the "unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power" that the plaintiff is claiming.

DISSENTING OPINION BY SOMATH HASINA

Under the “Blackstonian” bundle of land rights, ownership of a territory is set “horizontally by boundaries drawn upon the land, and extending from there vertically downward to the depths of the earth and upward to the heavens.” With literal following of this clause, no portion of the defendant’s designed home is expected to protrude over onto the property of the plaintiffs. Having been approved by both the architectural committee of the subdivision, and planning commission of the city, it can be said that the defendant has reason to desire to build his home where planned. However, the implicit notion that the rights to the sunlight provided by the sun above the plaintiff’s home is brought to question.

In the case of Fountainbleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. (1959), Forty- Five Twenty-Five, Inc. requested an injunction for the construction of an addition to Fountainbleau Hotel. This addition would have cast a shadow on the pool area of Eden Roc Hotel, a competing hotel located next to Fountainbleau. The court denied the injunction, and Fountainbleau was allowed to commence construction, regardless of the perceived injury to Eden Roc. With this case, the court decided that there is no legal right to “unobstructed light and air from the adjoining land.” If we are to follow the decision made in this case, it should be permissible for the defendant to continue with the construction of his home, however, as articulated by Justice Livingston in his dissenting opinion in the case of Pierson v. Post (1809), “if men themselves change with the times, why should not laws also undergo an alteration?” A decision favoring the defendant will surely challenge the reputation of the U.S. as a country that fosters new and beneficial ideas. The climate and nature of today’s time calls for innovative and forward-moving designs. By allowing the defendant to continue building his home, we will be setting a dangerous precedent in which the benefits of solar energy in homes will be overlooked and neglected. The incentive to install such solar energy units will greatly diminish, as the risk of losing the benefits of the systems will remain.

The defense counsel cautions against the argument that the defendant could have been accused of “coming to the nuisance”, however I find that it is the defendant himself who is providing the nuisance. The plaintiff, having been the first individual to construct a home on the subdivision, installed the solar energy unit in his home with expectations that he would have “absolute privileges to use and abuse” his property. The plaintiff thus expected to benefit from the sunlight received upon his home, only to find that his use could be obstructed by another residence. The proverb sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas [use your own so as not to injure another] applies to land use that does not injure the lawful rights of another. The defense argues that In Reaver v. Martin Theatres, Fla. (1951) it is stated that "it is well settled that a property owner may put his own property to any reasonable and lawful use, so long as he does not thereby deprive the adjoining landowner of any right of enjoyment of his property which is recognized and protected by law, and so long as his use is not such a one as the law will pronounce a nuisance." In this case, this court finds that the construction of the defendant’s home will be a nuisance upon the plaintiff. Due to this, the argument that the defendant is not injuring the lawful rights of the plaintiff is invalid.

According to the Coase Theorem, in reference to property rights, “a rearrangement of rights” can take place if the costs are “greater than the costs which would be involved in bringing it about." Further, according to Coase, both parties are responsible for paying for the externalities. If we are to allow the defendant to continue with the construction of his home, the externality that the shadowing effect of this residence will create will greatly diminish the investment that the plaintiff has made upon his property. The energy bills for the plaintiff will rise, and thus the plaintiff will solely be liable for the costs.

If we are to follow Coase, and efficient outcome can be achieved if the defendant changes the grade and distance of his home. By doing so, the costs that both the defendant and plaintiff will face will be much smaller, or nonexistent. Conversely, if we are to allow the defendant to build his home where currently planned, not only will the defendant lose money in his initial investment, but will also face further costs in the future. The plaintiff does not require the sunlight for aesthetic purposes, but rather for his welfare. By impeding the sunlight from fully entering the plaintiff’s residence, we are lowering the value of his property. The case at hand roots deeper than the dispute over "unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power”, and becomes one of future precedence and costs as well. It is possible to view this sole case as low-stakes, however when applied to future events, it can lead to devastating results. The United States is a progress oriented country, and impeding innovations, such as this solar energy unit, greatly reduces the chances to modernize. By strictly following the concept of the Blackstonian bundle of land rights, one may conclude that the defendant has the right to build his home where planned. In the present time, one cannot stop planes from flying through their property, or stations from sending sound waves over their land. Both these occurrences stand to serve a public good, and in most cases will not create a permanent nuisance or externality, especially one in which one party solely faces the costs.

For these reasons I dissent from the majority opinion, and believe that a temporary injunction be granted upon the construction of the defendant’s home pending changes to the grade and distance of the residence.