## Facts

- Rudolph and Bonnie Sher leased a residential lot in a Stanford-affiliated subdivision subject to Stanford’s review of building and landscaping.
- The Shers built a passive solar home oriented to maximize winter sun through south-facing design features (including larger windows and a south-facing patio).
- P. Herbert and Gloria Leiderman leased the adjacent uphill lot, obtained approval, and built their home; the lots shared a boundary with the Leidermans to the south of the Shers.
- At the time of construction, neither lot had significant trees.
- Over time, the Leidermans planted and allowed trees to mature; the trees ultimately blocked winter sunlight to the Shers’ home, allegedly reducing light, heat performance, and market value.
- The Leidermans refused to trim the trees or allow the Shers to trim them.
- The Shers sued asserting private nuisance, a statutory claim under the California Solar Shade Control Act, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a theory of mutual equitable servitudes.

## Issues

1. Whether a neighbor’s trees that block sunlight can constitute a private nuisance absent an express easement or similar right to solar access.
2. Whether the California Solar Shade Control Act provides a private remedy for shading of passive solar features such as windows and skylights.
3. Whether negligent infliction of emotional distress is recoverable based on loss of sunlight where no independent duty or underlying tort is established.
4. Whether a subdivision plan and approval scheme created enforceable mutual equitable servitudes restricting tree growth to protect solar access.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for the Leidermans after a court trial.
- The court held California nuisance law does not recognize a claim for mere blockage of sunlight by neighboring trees, and it declined to create such a right through nuisance doctrine.
- The court held the Solar Shade Control Act did not apply because the Shers’ home used passive solar design and did not include a qualifying “solar collector” under the statute.
- The negligent-infliction claim failed because no duty or actionable underlying wrong supported negligence liability.
- The demurrer to the mutual-equitable-servitudes claim was properly sustained because the allegations did not establish enforceable servitudes limiting tree height or protecting solar access.

## Legal Principles

- Absent an easement, covenant, or statutory grant, California law does not recognize a property right to receive sunlight across adjoining land, and obstruction of sunlight by trees is not actionable as a private nuisance.
- Courts will not use nuisance doctrine to create a de facto easement for solar access; such rights must be created by agreement or legislation.
- The California Solar Shade Control Act applies only where the plaintiff has a qualifying “solar collector” as defined by the statute; passive architectural features (e.g., windows and skylights) are not treated as solar collectors for purposes of the Act.
- Negligence-based emotional distress claims require a recognized duty and an underlying breach; where no duty exists to preserve a neighbor’s solar access, emotional-distress damages are unavailable on that theory.
- A mutual equitable servitude requires sufficiently definite facts showing a binding common plan or covenant; generalized subdivision oversight and approvals, without more, do not create enforceable limits on neighboring landscaping for solar access.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the tree-owning neighbors, holding that loss of sunlight from neighboring trees is not a private nuisance without an easement or similar right, the Solar Shade Control Act did not cover passive solar windows, and neither negligence nor equitable-servitude theories supplied a basis to compel trimming or recover damages.


Sher v. Leiderman, 181 Cal. App. 3d 867 (Ct. App. 1986)