There is a story in Lanikai, Oahu, Hawaii about a guy who didn't like the palm trees in his neighbor's yard because they blocked most of his view of the ocean. So, he poisoned the trees. The neighbors in turn planted traveler palm trees which effectively blocked the guys view of anything outside of his own yard. He died as an angry man shortly thereafter. His bad karma still resides in that property.

What's interesting in this story is that if the people suing really were entitled to an unobstructed view of the water, they should have bought property on the waterfront.

And if there's a 30 foot utility pole on the defendants property, isn't that likewise "blocking" the view, or at least part of what's blocking things? I still dont see the logic in the decision (or are the plaintiffs neighbors that are also waterfront owners and lost an unobstructed view of the water (?)

Disputes like this are what clog the courts. The mentality of these adults rivals that of pre-schoolers. I'm amazed that either couple has enough intelligence to work hard enough to pay for anything; yet at the same time I pray that neither couple has children who depend on them for guidance. Another fine example of the downward spiral of the human race.