patrick.net

The first question I have is does the view make a property more valuable? This isn't anything new, there have been plenty of law suits in New York city where a new building development blocks or will block the view of the park for the residents of other buildings. There's also been lawsuits to try to block what people will see, for example one person tried to block the development of a loading dock and another a drive through window. I also recall other incidents where people purchased a house with woods behind it only to find the developer builds condos there later.

I think it's pretty obvious that the view does have a monetary value to it. Apartments that have great views of Central park in New York city command a higher rent / price than other apartments that have views of a brick wall. Places where the sunrise shines though the windows in the morning are more valuable then places that have a huge skyscraper blocking the sunlight until the late morning. Houses that have nice views of a river or ocean are also more valuable.

But the question is can the people blocking your view be held liable for the loss of the view? No one likes it when a formerly empty lot now has a house on it blocking there views they enjoyed before. Do these people have any claim to damages? What about the people who own the property in question? Don't they have rights as well?

Here is the meat of it:

"The lawsuit also names the borough of Cliffside Park and zoning officials as plaintiffs, saying they failed to enforce zoning ordinances -- including one that limits fences to 4 feet."

- If the trees are considered 'fences', which to the best of my knowledge virtually no jurisdiction does, then yes, zoning ordinances are broken and the neighbors have sustained damages. Note that they planted bamboo and trees, they did not erect a fence: the Oz's were well advised to be careful about what they were doing initially. Are these trees planted at grade level along the Oz's yard? I suppose so if they are 46 feet high.

- Does the zoning prohibit blocking views? If so, they have a case here also.

If no to both - well, I suppose they are hard put to win a lawsuit. The thrust of this may well be to actually have the zoning ordinances changed to more carefully prohibit what the Oz's did, and when passed, require them to remove it. Will be tough, and lots of other neighbors will have to get on board. but if they think it's worth enough in equity they might.

There is a similar lawsuit along the Palisades in NJ, from what i understand - some developer wants to build a large high-rise complex between the existing hill side homes and the river. They are freaking out.

If you don't own it, you don't/can't control it.

Hmm, re-reading the article, I saw, "Oz's wife, Lisa, said the trees would keep paparazzi from intruding....". A fence is meant to keep people / animals in or out of a property. If you define a fence as any object that keeps people in or out, one could argue that the trees act as a fence, there fore they should be treated as such.

This is why I would never pay extra money for a view. Get the cheapest view you can get. Even if you look at the ocean, one day your view can be blocked by wind mills.

TechGromit says

If you define a fence as any object that keeps people in or out, one could argue that the trees act as a fence, there fore they should be treated as such

Hmm. The argument is not necessarily to keep people in/out, it is for privacy. Trees are considered natural screening material and while fences can be used as screening also it is only to a certain height. For instance, a new apt. complex can be required to be screened by evergreens that can easily reach 30-50 feet high. But rarely would a hard surface screen much past 8 feet in height be acceptable in those very same areas.

Honestly I think the neighbors have an uphill battle. Not to say there is no empathy, sound like the Oz's were pretty obnoxious/don't give a rats ass about their neighbors priorities. But their deed certainly does not include views to Manhattan, the Oz property most certainly has no kind of neighbor 'view easement', and seems the ordinances in place when the neighbor's purchase happened didn't speak to 'rights to views' either. So I guess it is incorrect for the neighbor's house to be valued with a view consideration.

Their best bet is to sue the town and retroactively pass a more restrictive ordinance. I guess it can be argued that set backs and building height restrictions were the only restrictions that could be reasonably expected when evaluating the perpetuity of a view, that no one could reasonably expect 46 foot cedars to be dropped in, and the spirit/intent of the ordinance was violated and it detrimentally impact the neighborhood.

There's also a faint argument to make for blocking natural sunshine, if orientation is applicable.

If the Oz's planted the trees so that any part of them hangs over their property line, then they can trim them to the PL. A lopsided tree is not healthy and it is very obnoxious to do, as I'm sure the 46 foot cedars were a truck load of money.

I'm surprised they can transplant something that big, the transportation of them alone must have been a logistics nightmare. Moving something that big and not have it die during removal, transport and replanting is impressive.

I have a question... in a multi-million dollar enclave, how is it that one person's landscaping is reaching another person's house, no matter how high the wind? Sounds like tiny lots and giant houses.

The lots here are small, so boundary disputes are very common.

Doesn’t a homeowner have every right to plant trees on their property even if it blocks their neighbor’s view?

Absolutely they have every right, YES.

As long as it's legal I don't care (even if it brings property value down). Not to mention "Value" is a fungible term here. To one person value is having view of a city, to another view of a tree.

This is a very frivolous lawsuit. Case will get dismissed, otherwise everyone can sue bank of America for blocking sunlight in center of LA. It's a very tall building blocking sunlight for several blocks in Los Angeles...

The woman suing is also quite a bit delusional. In this CBS report, she claimes her house is worth $3 million:

"The neighbors claim the offending cedars have cost them more than $500,000 on the resale value of the $3 million dollar home"

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/12/03/n-j-neighbor-sues-dr-oz/

However, last year the EXACT same house next door was listed for $2 million with no takers. Tax records indicate they paid $1.2 million in 2002.

TechGromit says

I’m surprised they can transplant something that big, the transportation of them alone must have been a logistics nightmare.

Some celeb property owners in the Hamptons have been known to 'install' full sized palm trees in their yard every season, then when winter comes around they are removed, wrapped and stored in warehouses until the next year. True.

Do you guys think this lawyer would sue him over matter like this if he were a piss poor J6P, not a rich celeb doc?

seaside says

Do you guys think this lawyer would sue him over matter like this if he were a piss poor J6P, not a rich celeb doc?

Lawyers will sue over anything provided you pay them. Not all cases are contingency fee arrangements, so long as your willing to pay them there hourly rate, they will be happy to file any case on your behalf.