Π had a house with solar panels and he sues to prevent the Δ from building a house that will block the sun When Π went and asked Δ to move his house several feet so his access t sunlight was not interrupted, Δ denied and began construction Issue Is there a cause of action for interference of access to sunlight used for solar heat? (YES!) Holding + Reasoning Through development of technology solar paneling has become more practical and therefore, thus Π’s use of this property is reasonable This is a Minority Rule Provides no notice to the Δ and the only thing like this that has been regulated are spite fences Law must keep up with the changing times and since solar energy had new significance it should be protected Decision was judicial activism Better for Legislature to Decide because the court had NO way of knowing the capacity/future of solar power We are increasingly regulating how property owners use their land even without physical damage to the neighbors Π with solar panels was externalizing cost on his neighbor He could have built the house in a different area of his plot to avoid this problem, bought the neighboring lot, or purchased an easement Servitudes Definition A legal device that creates a right or an obligation that “runs with the land” or with an interest in the land. “Runs with the Land” If it passes automatically to successive owners or occupiers of the land or the interest in land with which the right or obligation runs A variety of legal mechanisms to control the use and access to real property Allows for sticks regarding the use and control of land to be divided among people One person gets certain sticks even though the owner controls the bundle as a whole License NOT CLASSIFIED AS SERVITUDES Temporary permission to use/enter/control property. NOT transferable (Person to the license-holder) Usually for a short-time, generally revocable at the will of the property owner, and informal Ex Invitation to one’s home for a BBQ, Grocery Store Open to Public Easement Permission to enter or control another’s property that is permanent and irrevocable Affirmative v. Negative Easements Affirmative Easement Give easement holder the right to use or access another’s land (Ex Cable Cord for TV)
Usually ONLY in cases of landlocked land Finn v. Williams – (Illinois) Facts Δ refuses to permit the Π to travel through their land as they had been doing in the past because the Π’s land was landlocked Issue Do the Π’s have a right to use the Δ’s land as a right of way in order to be able to get to a highway without walking? Holding + Reasoning Court grants an easement by necessity An implied easement by necessity may lie dormant if it is written down or intended to be given when the land first changed owners Do not want land to become useless even though the costs are on the Δ Possibly better for the legislature to require the land-locked owner to apply to a public entity and pay for the easement However, unfair bargaining can occur because the Π really needs the easement and Δ can charge whatever he wants Easement by necessity does NOT require that there have been an actual prior use before severance Intent of the Grantor (****IMPORTANT****) Most courts agree that no easement of necessity will be recognized if it is clear that the grantor intended to sell, and the grantee knew she was buying a landlocked parcel. Other courts disregard the intent of the grantor and will allow for an easement by necessity even if the buyer knew his parcel was landlocked, in order to promote the development of property ***RULES*** Where an owner conveys a portion of his land which had no outlet except over the land of grantor or strangers, an easement by necessity exists over the retained land of the grantor. Implied Easements DO NOT have to be in writing Will either be implied from prior use or necessity Implied by Prior Use v. Implied by Necessity By Necessity Must be One tract/piece of land before conveyance You MUST really need the easement Not given if it would simply make your life easier No prior use necessary