Abnormal Disturbance of Neighborhood: Law and Jurisprudence

Extract

[...] Can a neighbor invoke an abnormal disturbance of the neighborhood due to the natural fall of needles when the trees are regularly planted and do not encroach on his property? Article 671 of the Civil Code imposes a minimum distance of 2m from the dividing line for trees over 2m in height. Article 673, on the other hand, allows the neighbor to demand pruning or uprooting only in the event of branches encroaching on his property. Finally, Article 1253 provides that abnormal disturbance of the neighborhood is that which "exceeds the normal inconveniences of the neighborhood ». [...]

[...] Therefore, the second condition is also satisfied. Finally, the neighbor's refusal is based on on any legitimate or serious grounds, this last one refusing due to quarrels with his neighbor. Finally, the temporary passage on the neighboring land is here the only reasonable way to carry out essential work. Therefore, the neighbor cannot validly object : is characterized as an abuse of right. A golf course has been implanted in the immediate vicinity of a residential house. Since the start of operation, golf balls regularly reach the funds of a neighboring owner, falling repeatedly in his garden and his terrace. [...]

[...] However, the needles fall into the neighbor's pool, forcing him to clean it. However, this phenomenon is natural, caused by normal use of the funds, predictable and inherent to the presence of trees, otherwise it is not particularly dangerous or seriously depriving of enjoyment. The nuisance is limited to a more frequent maintenance of the pool. Finally, legal distances are respected and the fall of needles, even annoying, constitutes a normal inconvenience of neighboring, not an abnormal trouble. In these circumstances, it seems difficult to obtain in court the felling of trees, the amicable way should be preferred. Following an event that caused some material damages on a building, the owner must undertake < b >repairs urgent works, necessary to his < b >building conservationend>. [...]

[...] Then, the works must be impossible to carry out from the owner's funds, so that access to the neighboring fund constitutes the only reasonable way to proceed with the repairs (CA Paris Feb n° 11/23295). This impossibility can be recognized even if an alternative solution exists, if it would present a a cost that is clearly disproportionate, which excludes it from being a mere convenience or a mere economy (Cass. 3rd civ Feb n° 10-22.899). In these circumstances, the jurisprudence admits that the neighbor's refusal to let access to the land temporarily without a legitimate and serious reason constitutes a an abuse of the right of property, characterizing a delictual fault (Civ. [...]

[...] In this case, the neighboring owner finds in a regular manner of golf balls in his garden and on his patio. The threat of receiving a ball is real, random, unpredictable and inescapable, since it reproduces daily. Or, ball projections affect the safety your neighbor, the normal enjoyment and the tranquillité. These nuisances exceed what a neighbor can normally tolerate due to a golf course. Furthermore, the presence of administrative authorizations does not exempt the operator. Finally, repeated and unpredictable ball drops constitute a constant and proven risk, recognized by jurisprudence as a abnormal neighborhood trouble. [...]