Per Danielsen, known for his work as a lawyer for many years, chose to sue his neighbor on Nordstrand, when the neighbor built a terrace, glass fence and hot tub. Danielsen has justified the lawsuit with an easement from 2018, which prohibits construction that takes away the view from Danielsen’s living room window.
Got framework permission for densification from Oslo municipality. But then the neighbors took the case to court
The developer demolished the newly purchased house for 11 million to replace it with four detached houses. Now the neighbors – with support from the Oslo District Court – have brought the project to a complete halt.
Bought the plot from Danielsen
The neighbors bought the plot in 2019 and received planning permission for the construction of a detached house and double garage, designed by architect Lorentz Gedde-Dahl. The seller of the plot was Danielsen himself, who received NOK 7.45 million at the sale.
The neighbor has later built the above-mentioned planned detached house in accordance with the framework permit. Danielsen has had no comments on the location of the detached house, but when the new neighbors started various outdoor works there was a disturbance.
In the easement it is stated that future construction on Danielsen’s neighboring plot “must always be such that nothing that is built or undertaken should prevent a clear view for gnr/bnr” (Danielsen, editor’s note) from the current living room window and to Ulvøybrua as marked on the attached map with such a wavy line”
After several meetings and e-mail exchanges, it became clear that the neighbors believed they had the right to carry out the measures, while Danielsen stood his ground. He has also argued that the ban applies to “everything” west of the registered wavy line in the map that prevents “free views”.
– The terrace leads to obstruction of an unobstructed view because it involves a lot of activities in the form of parasols, barbecuing and swimming. The location of the hot tub prevents an unobstructed view due to the activities it entails, Danielsen has pointed out.
The district court does not support Danielsen’s interpretation
Danielsen then chose to sue the neighbours, and at the end of April a trial was held in the Oslo district court. On Wednesday this week, the verdict came. Here, the Oslo District Court concludes that the neighbors have not acted in breach of the easement.
– Overall, the court cannot see that the easement should be understood as constituting a ban on construction and use west of the wavy line, as stated by Danielsen. A natural interpretation of the easement is that it should ensure an unobstructed view from the living room window in Danielsen’s home, not prevent use of (the neighbour’s) property. Unobstructed view in the sense of the easement must be understood so that one can see the Oslo Fjord and the surrounding area, and not as a restriction on the possibility of staying on the property or making changes that do not block the view. Human activity on (the neighbour’s) property also does not constitute an obstacle to a clear view, writes the Oslo district court in the judgement.
In the alternative, Danielsen has demanded compensation from the neighbours, up to NOK six million.
A neighbor was run over in an easement dispute
Rematch in the Court of Appeal led to success – the homeowners at Vinderen emerged victorious from the Borgarting Court of Appeal in a case about an alleged regional easement.
This too is rejected by the Oslo district court, which believes that there is no breach of contract.
– There is also no evidence from Danielsen’s side that he has suffered a financial loss of the order of NOK 2 to 6 million or that there is a causal connection, writes district court judge Ingmar Nestor Nilsen.
The court also sentences Danielsen to pay the other party’s legal costs of NOK 238,000.
– When the starting point is the craziest…
Per Danielsen tells Estate Nyheter that he is considering an appeal.
– An appeal is being considered. I believe that the district court has taken the wrong starting point in the entire assessment when it is assumed that it was intended to have a building ban on the whole of the neighbour’s plot. It is an obvious misunderstanding. The ban only applies to a limited part of the plot on a part that will prevent an unobstructed view, says Danielsen and adds:
– But when the starting point is the craziest, the result is also often the most original, as is well known.
Attorney Linnéa Tereza Karlberg was attorney for Danielsen. The legal representative for the neighbors was lawyer Tony Andre Vangen.
