Neighbour Dispute re tree fence line

seamstress · 21st July 2009, 03:37 AM

Similar situation happened to me.

Large limb from one of my trees fell across the lot line, part on my side and part on neighbors. Luckily property damage was almost nil, just a bent fence.

The neighbor owned a chain saw, I didn't. I told him if he cut the thick sections into chunks I could carry, I would take care of disposal. So he spent some time cutting it up where it lay, and I spent some time bundling branches and hauling it all out for pick up.

Not long after, I had the top of the tree whacked off. Unlike Mr Karas in this article, I don't want to risk a future lawsuit. Just hiring a lawyer would bankrupt me, never mind who wins or loses. The tree looks awful, but I couldn't afford to have it entirely removed. I did almost entirely remove the risk of lawsuits, however. People are too sue happy.

treevet · 21st July 2009, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamstress

Similar situation happened to me.

Large limb from one of my trees fell across the lot line, part on my side and part on neighbors. Luckily property damage was almost nil, just a bent fence.

The neighbor owned a chain saw, I didn't. I told him if he cut the thick sections into chunks I could carry, I would take care of disposal. So he spent some time cutting it up where it lay, and I spent some time bundling branches and hauling it all out for pick up.

Not long after, I had the top of the tree whacked off. Unlike Mr Karas in this article, I don't want to risk a future lawsuit. Just hiring a lawyer would bankrupt me, never mind who wins or loses. The tree looks awful, but I couldn't afford to have it entirely removed. I did almost entirely remove the risk of lawsuits, however. People are too sue happy.

You may not be aware of it but by "whacking the top off the tree" you likely have started a chain of events that may leave you even more in risk and liability than if you had left it alone.

pcarborist · 21st July 2009, 12:06 PM

Seamstress, do you have a photo?

The Tree Whisperer · 21st July 2009, 05:04 PM

Treecrazed, The issue here is who is liable for the trees, who owns the trees and whose responsibility is the care and maintenance of the trees.

I am in australia so I cannot comment on federal or state laws where you are from however here we have a few laws in regards to these matters, they are held under the land and environment court and are bound by the trees (Disputes between neigbours)Act which takes into account issues involving the trees such as nuisance and potential danger.

We also have a law that states that what overhangs your property is yours and so you can prune it back to the fenceline as long as the pruning falls within the standards for pruning.

BE CAREFUL IT CAN BE TRICKY!!!! as to prune to standards usually means not leaving stubs and this in turn means you need access to the property which then brings in trespass laws if you do not have th owners permission.

I SAID IT WOULD BE TRICKY!!!

My advice is DONT talk about your loss of views as this always raises red flags and indicates that you are the driving force behind the trees demise, hence his request for you to contribute.

My advice get your on consulting arborist (THATS CONSULTING ARBORIST!! not just tree worker, lopper feller. and have him do an assessment for you, this will cost you but will ultimately save you $3500.00 and hopefully sort out the problem. Dont talk to him about views just nuisnace loss of solar access (sunlight) and th report from your neighbours arborist as to the instability of the trees.

Then if your arborist report comes to the same agreement as the previous report then you have grounds to send a letter through a solicitor/lawyer identifying your concerns as to the safety of the trees in regards to their identified hazard potential.

Yes!!! send it through a solicitor/lawyer as this has a 2- fold effect 1)shows your serious, 2) creates a record that you have raised it to their attention and this will help should something happen to prove negligence on your neighbours part (critical to a favourable outcome in court)
Hope that helps.

treevet · 22nd July 2009, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tree Whisperer

Treecrazed, The issue here is who is liable for the trees, who owns the trees and whose responsibility is the care and maintenance of the trees.

Liability is the focus of my post Whispy. Don't know when you, a new guy, became a moderator but if you are someone made a mistake.

The HO may have made herself liable in the future by topping (whacking off the top) of the tree that will set off a chain of events including epicormic sprouts and infection by decay causing organisms that will make her liable in the FUTURE if failure occurs and loss is suffered.

Quote:

I am in australia so I cannot comment on federal or state laws where you are

Garry Brockley · 22nd July 2009, 05:17 PM

Treevet he is reffering to treecrazed the original poster from 6 nov 2008 not you

but treevet is right about the ho cutting the top off, potentially starting a chain of events that could lead to the demise of the tree. now that has been done it would be near impossible to claim that anyone else was at fault for mis/cutting pruning causing the trees demise.

treevet · 22nd July 2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbee

Treevet he is reffering to treecrazed the original poster from 6 nov 2008 not you

but treevet is right about the ho cutting the top off, potentially starting a chain of events that could lead to the demise of the tree. now that has been done it would be near impossible to claim that anyone else was at fault for mis/cutting pruning causing the trees demise.

My apologies for misunderstanding Galb (and Tree whisperer) and I wish you would edit my post. I don't know how to do it with the edit button gone.

What you said is what I meant in my post about being the cause of the tree's demise (or failure) in the future.

Eric Frei · 2nd May 2010, 08:46 AM

Interesting story here from USA about eucs. what is interesting is that not 1 cent of damage has occured yet a judge ordered the trees down.

Larkspur woman loses tree appeal, vows to take case to Supreme Court

Quote:

A Larkspur woman is vowing to take her case to the California Supreme Court after an appellate court sided with a Marin judge's ruling that she chop down more than two dozen of her eucalyptus trees.

The grove of massive trees took center stage in a trial last year pitting neighbor against neighbor over the touchy subjects of property rights, safety and civility.

Last April, Dr. Anne Wolff was ordered to cut down 28 of her 45 blue gum eucalyptus trees at her Bayview Avenue home in the Palm Hill neighborhood because they were a "clear and continuing hazard," according to a ruling issued by former Marin Superior Court Judge Michael Dufficy.

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco affirmed Dufficy's decision in a preliminary ruling that will become official on Thursday. Wolff has 10 days to determine if she will appeal to the state's top court, but she said she already has made up her mind.

"We are taking it to the state Supreme Court," Wolff said Tuesday.

There is no guarantee the court will hear the case, but Wolff's attorney, Michael J. Coffino, said important legal issues are at stake.

"The case addresses the standard by which property owners should be held accountable in their ability to control Mother Nature," he said. "If every property owner is responsible for the vagaries of Mother Nature, we have gone down a dangerous slippery slope."

Sausalito attorney Barri K. Bonapart, who represented Wolff's neighbors who were concerned the trees or their limbs could fall on them, said the appellate decision was correct.

"These trees are nothing to mess around with," she said, adding she didn't believe the state Supreme Court would hear the case. "Eucalyptus trees are very dense. Their limbs can weigh as much as an SUV, 3,000 or 4,000 pounds."

She added that her clients "will be relieved once the trees are taken down."

The appellate court said: "While uncertainty of future harm by itself is not sufficient to obtain an injunction against a nuisance, a reasonable probability of significant harm is. Here, substantial evidence supports the conclusion of a reasonable probability of future harm from failing branches and fire."

Neighbors Michael and Joni Mindel and Catherine and Lawrence Way filed the original suit against Wolff, saying the trees, some of which are more than 100 feet tall, pose a safety threat.

"The fact of the matter is that after 14 years there has not been one cent of damage to the Ways' or Mindels' homes," Wolff said.

During storms the Mindels, who also live on Bayview Avenue, have slept in different parts of their house because they were concerned about damage from a falling tree, and they have even left the home entirely, according to court documents.

They were so concerned that 10 years ago they offered Wolff $50,000 to remove the eucalyptus trees and replant other species in her yard. Wolff, who purchased the property in 1994 - before the plaintiffs moved to the neighborhood - declined.

The Ways, who live on Elm Avenue, have had sleepless nights and have formulated evacuation plans in case a tree or heavy limb hits their home, according to court records.

During the trial Bonapart said her clients were "terrified" by the prospect of damage caused by the trees, and Larkspur fire officials deemed them a fire hazard.

In his ruling, Dufficy cited the plaintiffs' arborist's report, which identified 28 trees in danger of falling on the neighbors' property. While the Dufficy ruling favored the plaintiffs, it also required all parties to split the cost of removing the trees, estimated to be in excess of $50,000.

Neighbors say the 28 eucalyptus trees on Anne Wolff s Larkspur property pose a threat to their homes, and so far, judges agree. (IJ photo/Jeff Vendsel)

Garry Brockley · 3rd May 2010, 08:41 AM

would be very interesting to see the perimiter trees in relation to the neighbours house, people seriously panic over trees even when they dont even understand their nature.

21st July 2009, 03:37 AM	#31
seamstress I'm new here so be nice Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: SE Michigan, USA Posts: 4	Re: Neighbour Dispute re tree fence line Similar situation happened to me. Large limb from one of my trees fell across the lot line, part on my side and part on neighbors. Luckily property damage was almost nil, just a bent fence. The neighbor owned a chain saw, I didn't. I told him if he cut the thick sections into chunks I could carry, I would take care of disposal. So he spent some time cutting it up where it lay, and I spent some time bundling branches and hauling it all out for pick up. Not long after, I had the top of the tree whacked off. Unlike Mr Karas in this article, I don't want to risk a future lawsuit. Just hiring a lawyer would bankrupt me, never mind who wins or loses. The tree looks awful, but I couldn't afford to have it entirely removed. I did almost entirely remove the risk of lawsuits, however. People are too sue happy.

21st July 2009, 12:06 PM	#33
pcarborist Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: PC Posts: 176	Re: Neighbour Dispute re tree fence line Seamstress, do you have a photo? __________________ parkcityarborist

21st July 2009, 05:04 PM	#34
The Tree Whisperer Former Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Northern Rivers NSW Posts: 39	Re: Neighbour Dispute re tree fence line Treecrazed, The issue here is who is liable for the trees, who owns the trees and whose responsibility is the care and maintenance of the trees. I am in australia so I cannot comment on federal or state laws where you are from however here we have a few laws in regards to these matters, they are held under the land and environment court and are bound by the trees (Disputes between neigbours)Act which takes into account issues involving the trees such as nuisance and potential danger. We also have a law that states that what overhangs your property is yours and so you can prune it back to the fenceline as long as the pruning falls within the standards for pruning. BE CAREFUL IT CAN BE TRICKY!!!! as to prune to standards usually means not leaving stubs and this in turn means you need access to the property which then brings in trespass laws if you do not have th owners permission. I SAID IT WOULD BE TRICKY!!! My advice is DONT talk about your loss of views as this always raises red flags and indicates that you are the driving force behind the trees demise, hence his request for you to contribute. My advice get your on consulting arborist (THATS CONSULTING ARBORIST!! not just tree worker, lopper feller. and have him do an assessment for you, this will cost you but will ultimately save you $3500.00 and hopefully sort out the problem. Dont talk to him about views just nuisnace loss of solar access (sunlight) and th report from your neighbours arborist as to the instability of the trees. Then if your arborist report comes to the same agreement as the previous report then you have grounds to send a letter through a solicitor/lawyer identifying your concerns as to the safety of the trees in regards to their identified hazard potential. Yes!!! send it through a solicitor/lawyer as this has a 2- fold effect 1)shows your serious, 2) creates a record that you have raised it to their attention and this will help should something happen to prove negligence on your neighbours part (critical to a favourable outcome in court) Hope that helps.

22nd July 2009, 05:17 PM	#36
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,641	Re: Neighbour Dispute re tree fence line Treevet he is reffering to treecrazed the original poster from 6 nov 2008 not you but treevet is right about the ho cutting the top off, potentially starting a chain of events that could lead to the demise of the tree. now that has been done it would be near impossible to claim that anyone else was at fault for mis/cutting pruning causing the trees demise. __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

3rd May 2010, 08:41 AM	#39
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,641	Re: Neighbour Dispute re tree fence line would be very interesting to see the perimiter trees in relation to the neighbours house, people seriously panic over trees even when they dont even understand their nature. __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode