Too Bright a View

Proceedings of the Shareholders' Court
District of Canterfall
Golden Groves (Principalities)

In the case of the tort of trespass to estate brought by one

Galánt Kirvin, of Canter Junction, Shimmerglade, the plaintiff

against one

Mérric Eshil, of Canter Junction, Shimmerglade, the respondent

and having reviewed the case dossier brought before it, the Court finds the following:

• The plaintiff had acquired a volume of land located alongside the Cantervale Trail from the respondent eight years prior, for the purpose of the construction of a domicile intended for use as a personal dwelling;
• Along with the sub Mandamus rights to the property in question, the plaintiff had secured an easement in vista from the respondent protecting his volume's access to the pleasing view across that portion of the Shimmerglade hills under the control of the respondent;
• The substance of the plaintiff's action is that the respondent's most recent planting of genemod cotton violates this easement insofar as the combined effect of "vivid lime-green" and "a particularly virulent shade of hot pink" is "notably displeasing to the eye in combination, or in the case of the latter, individually";
• The respondent accepts this stipulation, but argues that as a supplier of intrinsically-dyed fiber to the fashion industry, he is obliged by the nature of his business to plant in accordance with demand;
• The respondent argues that past applications of easements in vista have concerned themselves with gross changes in the landscape and thus the available view; that forests should remain forested, agricultural or silvicultural land not be transformed into urb, that stone-village estates not become glassy metropoleis, and so forth. They have not, however, concerned themselves with managing the activity in the volume at a low level: precise crops grown, flocks and herds run, the occupancy and decoration of individual buildings, the precise nature of work being carried out therein; and so forth.
• The respondent also stipulates that the plaintiff has made no objection to previous plantings of crops substantially differing in color, and would presumably thus not object to later plantings of differing colors and thus more pleasing aspect;
• The plaintiff accepts this stipulation without further comment;
• The respondent further argues, and several amicus curiae briefs concur, that to apply a general easement in vista in such a manner would be to impose an intolerable limitation on the conduct of private business not compatible with the original intent of those selling such easements;
• It is the conclusion of the court that a general easement in vista is intended to preserve an overall pleasing view across the volume and duration for which it extends; and notes that in historical practice, temporary displeasing elements have not been found to violate such an easement; and that as such it gives rise to no torts relating to activities consistent with those which have always been carried out on the estate subject to the easement.

The Court therefore finds for the RESPONDENT, who is VINDICATED of any and all tortfeasance. The plaintiff's case is DISMISSED, and their request for specific performance is DENIED.

- Proceedings of the Curial Courts, Second Quarter, 5168