The plaintiff, Glenn Prah, had a conflict with the adjoining landowner, Richard D. Maretti – the defendant, concerning access to sunlight to fuel the solar panel energy system used to power his dwelling and the development of the adjoining undeveloped land. Prah bought a parcel of land that included a house with solar panel already installed on it. The adjacent lot was vacant, which Maretti later purchased. It was undeveloped and Maretti began plans to build a house on it close to the property line. The location of the house would have blocked the flow of sunlight to Prah’s solar panels making them ineffective. He wanted Maretti to move his house farther away from the property line. Maretti agreed to move it several feet, but was still short of the distance that Prah wanted. A person has no right to light or air, but does have the right to the enjoyment and use of their property. Prah argues that he is first in time and he had the right to the light and air first and that it would lessen his enjoyment and use of his property to have the sunlight blocked. Muretti argument is that the most important right of a landowner is the right to use their property. His house complies with the laws and statutes and therefore should be allowed to be built. Then the dispute arose…
There several alternatives to litigation that may be applicable in this situation as trial is expensive. Our suggestions are:
1. The first approach is to send a Demand Letter which details our demands to the other side. In our case it is the location that the house is being built. We would outline what we wanted and the action that we are planning to take if our requests are not met. The benefits of a demand letter are, predictably, straight forward. There is no dancing and no posturing; the opposing party knows where we stand and has the opportunity to accept or reject our offer. Although, the disadvantage to this approach is that if the opposing party rejects then we will be forced to follow through will filing an action.
2. Alternatively we could send a Negotiation Letter, such as a monetary amount to persuade the other side to give up their position in exchange for money. This opens the door to negotiations which in return the opposing party may offer us some kind of resolution to the problem. Negotiations are usually the most tactful manner of resolving a problem, allowing both sides to offer different solutions to the problem without the extra expense of mediation or arbitration.
3. Through Mediation we will work with an outside party to exchange offers and hopefully come to an agreement. If an agreement was reached we would enter into a CR2A agreement which is binding. The positive aspect to mediation is that it reduces cost and the parties can reach a resolution without the risk of an outside party making a decision.

4. Another alternative is Arbitration, which is an outside party that acts as a judge or commissioner. Our office would submit our argument to the arbitrator and he or she would decide how to rule. Their decision is final and results in a direction for an order. This is a good alternative because both parties agree on who the arbitrator should be and this process substantially saves money. Through arbitration we would still submit exhibits, the history of the properties and reason for the disagreement, and the laws that support our case. In many instances, we can hire a former judge or commissioner who has ruled on many different issues and knows the various aspects of the law. The disadvantage to arbitration is that like trial we would be leaving the decision in someone else’s hands. While arbitration will save you money in the long run the arbitrator will generally not meet you face to face and will not be able to experience you as a person. Although if you lose in arbitration the decision is almost impossible to overrule, so I advise caution in choosing arbitration..
5. Trial by Affidavit. In this process you waive your right to a trial and submit declarations, exhibits, analyses, and our argument. The judge assigned to our case would review these documents and make a final ruling. Trial by Affidavit entails the same aspects as a trial except that it reduces costs because no appearance is necessary. All of the witness’s declaration and expert analysis is submitted in hard copy and we do not have to pay to have these experts to wait around to be called for a personal appearance. The disadvantage is that the judge would not be able to hear your testimony and judge your credibility.
6. My final suggestion is collaborative Law. If we decide to entertain this option then the attorneys of both parties work together on their client’s behalf to come to a solution to the dispute. The final result reached by the lawyers is legally binding to both parties. Furthermore, this action only includes attorney’s fees rather than the astronomical fees that can result from trial.