Prah v. Maretti
108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of private nuisance, which balances the conflicting interests of landowners, can provide a remedy when a landowner's structure unreasonably obstructs an adjacent landowner's access to sunlight for a solar energy system.
Facts:
- Glenn Prah constructed a residence with a roof-mounted solar system to supply energy for heat and hot water.
- After Prah's house was built, Richard D. Maretti purchased the adjacent lot immediately to the south.
- Maretti began planning the construction of a home on his property.
- Prah informed Maretti that the proposed location and design of his house would substantially and adversely affect the integrity of Prah's solar system by casting a shadow over the solar collectors.
- Prah requested that Maretti locate his home several feet further from the property line to avoid the shadowing effect.
- Prah and Maretti failed to reach an agreement on the location of Maretti's home.
- Despite Prah's objections, Maretti's building plans were approved by the subdivision's Architectural Control Committee and the City of Muskego Planning Commission, and Maretti began construction.
Procedural Posture:
- Glenn Prah filed a complaint in the circuit court for Waukesha county against Richard D. Maretti, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- Prah moved for a temporary injunction to restrain Maretti from constructing his home.
- The circuit court denied the motion for a temporary injunction.
- The circuit court then granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Maretti, concluding Prah had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Prah appealed the judgment to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin as an issue of first impression.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the obstruction of access to sunlight by an adjacent landowner's construction, which otherwise complies with all zoning ordinances and deed restrictions, state a claim for common law private nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Shirley S. Abrahamson, J.
Yes, the obstruction of access to sunlight can state a claim for common law private nuisance. This court holds that the traditional common law rule disfavoring protection for sunlight access is based on three obsolete policies: (1) the absolute right of landowners to use their property as they wished, (2) the view that sunlight was valued only for aesthetics and illumination, and (3) a societal interest in unimpeded land development. These policies are no longer applicable, as land use is now highly regulated, sunlight has gained significance as an energy source, and the need for rapid development is less pressing. Therefore, the flexible 'reasonable use' doctrine of private nuisance, as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, is the proper legal framework to balance the conflicting rights of the landowners. The case must be remanded for a factual determination of whether Maretti's proposed construction constitutes an unreasonable interference with Prah's use and enjoyment of his property.
Dissenting - William G. Callow, J.
No, the obstruction of sunlight by a structure that serves a useful purpose and complies with all applicable laws does not state a claim for private nuisance. The majority improperly discards the established common law principle that a landowner has a right to use his property within the limits of ordinances and statutes, regardless of its effect on a neighbor's light and air. This case is unlike 'spite fence' cases because no malice is alleged. Furthermore, Prah's solar collector represents an 'unusually sensitive use' of his property, which nuisance law does not typically protect from otherwise lawful and harmless conduct. This policy change is a matter for the legislature, which has already begun to address solar access rights through statutory schemes, and judicial activism in this area is unwarranted.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant evolution of common law nuisance doctrine by adapting it to modern technology and changing societal values. By rejecting a rigid per se rule against protecting sunlight access, the court established that access to sunlight for energy purposes is a legally cognizable interest under nuisance law. This ruling creates a new potential cause of action for owners of solar energy systems but also introduces uncertainty for developers and property owners, as compliance with zoning and other regulations is no longer an absolute defense against a nuisance claim. The case champions a flexible, fact-intensive balancing approach over a rigid, rights-based one, signaling that courts may be willing to reconsider other ancient property rules in light of contemporary needs.
Unlock the full brief for Prah v. Maretti