In article ,
"chaniarts" wrote:


I know that Dan has no legal obligation to trim the tree, but is there
an implied moral obligation (it's Dan's tree therefore he should trim
it), or is it implied that the trim is for Bob's sole benefit,
therefore Bob should do it? (And splitting the cost does not seem to
be an option here).

if the limb is over the property line, then it belongs to bob and can be
trimmed by bob. the cost is paid by bob.

Technically that part of the limb that is over the property line is
Bob's. Just because the limb hangs over the property line doesn't mean
Bob can enter Dan's property and cut it off at the trunk. Small nit, but
one I thought I should point out.

if bob notifies dan that it is in danger of falling and doing property
damage, and it does, then it's dan's insurance that will get eventually get
hit.

Depends on the situation and the state. For instance, if Bob notes
that the limb is in danger of falling and does nothing about the part on
is property, that might not hold, again depending on the jurisdiction,
since Bob had the right to mitigate that danger and did not. If, on the
other hand, Bob noted that the entire tree was rotting and then it fell,
he would have a better case since there was nothing Bob could do about
the part on Dan's property.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke