Tree on Property Line
I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so-
hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). |
Tree on Property Line
John wrote:
I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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. 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. |
Tree on Property Line
On May 26, 12:12*pm, "chaniarts" wrote:
John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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. 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree in general with the above, however I'd say just notifying a neighbor that according to you a tree on his property presents a danger, isn't sufficient to establish liability. If it was, one could just send a letter stating that for any and all trees, thereby covering themselves for all cases where a tree later falls. For the neighbor to actually be liable, the tree would have to be an actual danger, ie it's rotten, leaning, dead, etc. If its a perfectly healthy tree on the neighbors property and it comes down in a wind storm damaging your house, I'd say the neighbor is not responsible regardless of whether you sent a letter or not. On the other hand, if you had a credible tree service provide you with a letter stating the tree is diseased and a danger and you sent that to the neighbor, then I'd say you'd be in an excellent position. And if the tree is so bad that is obvious from a picture, taking a picture before it falls down would be a good idea. As for the branches over the pool, it's the pool property owner's responsibility to trim the branches back to the property line. A couple things come into play. First, if it's easier to access and trim from one property than the other, then a reasonable neighbor would allow access. Second, in most cases, it would be better for the tree, aesthetics, etc for the branch to be cut off back at the tree, which in this case is on the other property. But there is no obligation that the neighbor do it. If the neighbor is being difficult, I'd send him an email or letter telling him what you plan to do. I'd say something like "While the best way to trim the tree would be to do it from your side and I have offered to pay for it, I'm now going to have them cut back to the property line from my side. That way it diminshes his opportunity to bitch about it or cause trouble later. |
Tree on Property Line
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:48:13 -0700 (PDT), John
wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I think John should do it, if he's the one that wants it done. Jim |
Tree on Property Line
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 |
Tree on Property Line
On May 26, 11:48*am, John wrote:
I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). This can be a tricky situation. Here's how it works in many areas, but you should check with your own municipality for the rules/laws specific to where you live. If the tree is not a "boundary tree" (i.e. not on the property line) and the trunk is fully on Dan's property, then it is Dan's tree. If any part of Dan's tree extends over the property line between Dan & Bob's property, then Bob has the right to trim the tree back to the property line without Dan's permission. However, many municipalities also have words to the effect "In trimming Dan's tree, Bob is not allowed to unduly harm Dan's tree." So let's say you have huge tree with the base of the trunk right inside Dan's property line, with huge limbs and multiple trunks extending over the line. It's reasonable to expect that if Bob exercises his rights to trim the tree back to his property line he will "unduly harm" the tree. That where it gets tricky and that's where Bob should be careful. Even if the trimming won't unduly harm Dan's tree, Bob needs to also consider how the tree will look after it's trimmed and how it will react. Depending on how the tree is trimmed, it might send out new growth from the trimmed areas, simply recreating the problem that Bob was trying to solve. It might also look unbalanced from various viewing angles and/or really ugly from Bob's side of the tree. |
Tree on Property Line
So legally, I've found the following:
First, (and I just discovered this), the branches on Bob's property are actually not owned by Bob... If it were a fruit tree, and it bore fruit, Bob would not be entitled to the fruit. Therefore it is actually Dan's tree, and those are Dan's branches. (This is Canadian Law, which seems to be consistent with US Law). It seems that Bob has the legal right to trim the overhanging branches so long as he does not unduly damage the tree. But, just to muddle things, if Bob does trim it, Dan still owns the trimmings. This means that Dan would be responsible for disposal. Next, Dan does not have the legal right to enter Bob's property to do any trimming without Bob's consent (and the trimming would obviously need to be done from there). If a branch were to break from the tree and damage Bob's property, Dan would not be liable (unless Dan did something to aid the branch in breaking, or he knew the state of the tree on his side of the property line might result in damage to the neighbors property ). There would be other special cases if the tree was planted after Bob moved in, but those don't apply here. Those of course, those are all legalities. At this point, the tree is in good condition, so no breakage is likely. Bob is insisting that Dan trim the tree and pay 100% of the bill (which, given there's a pool involved, is not insignificant), but Dan doesn't feel this is appropriate, and doesn't want to pay (and of course, he's not legally obligated to, so for now nothing's happening). |
Tree on Property Line
On May 26, 4:37*pm, John wrote:
So legally, I've found the following: First, (and I just discovered this), the branches on Bob's property are actually not owned by Bob... *If it were a fruit tree, and it bore fruit, Bob would not be entitled to the fruit. *Therefore it is actually Dan's tree, and those are Dan's branches. * (This is Canadian Law, which seems to be consistent with US Law). *It seems that Bob has the legal right to trim the overhanging branches so long as he does not unduly damage the tree. *But, just to muddle things, if Bob does trim it, Dan still owns the trimmings. *This means that Dan would be responsible for disposal. *Next, Dan does not have the legal right to enter Bob's property to do any trimming without Bob's consent (and the trimming would obviously need to be done from there). *If a branch were to break from the tree and damage Bob's property, Dan would not be liable (unless Dan did something to aid the branch in breaking, or he knew the state of the tree on his side of the property line might result in damage to the neighbors property ). There would be other special cases if the tree was planted after Bob moved in, but those don't apply here. Those of course, those are all legalities. *At this point, the tree is in good condition, so no breakage is likely. *Bob is insisting that Dan trim the tree and pay 100% of the bill (which, given there's a pool involved, is not insignificant), but Dan doesn't feel this is appropriate, and doesn't want to pay (and of course, he's not legally obligated to, so for now nothing's happening). " ...so for now nothing's happening" Oh yeah...something is happening. Bob and Dan are either building to a major blowout over late night noise at one or the other's party (to which the other was not invited) or they are headed towards years of not talking to each other, kids that won't be allowed to play together and the other subtle issues involved with a tiff between neighbors. |
Tree on Property Line
"John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I accidentally killed branches on one side of one of my trees. I was using weed killer or ground sterilizer, don't remember for getting rid of weeds. The next day I deep watered the tree. I must have sent the chemical down deep. Soon after that the limbs on that side of tree died. How ever the next year the branches sprouted out leaves again and got better in following years. ww |
Tree on Property Line
On Thu, 26 May 2011 13:37:20 -0700 (PDT), John
wrote: So legally, I've found the following: I didn't realize you were in Canada. First, (and I just discovered this), the branches on Bob's property are actually not owned by Bob... If it were a fruit tree, and it bore fruit, Bob would not be entitled to the fruit. Therefore it is actually Dan's tree, and those are Dan's branches. (This is Canadian Law, which seems to be consistent with US Law). It seems that Bob has the legal right to trim the overhanging branches so long as he does not unduly damage the tree. But, just to muddle things, if Bob does trim it, Dan still owns the trimmings. This means that Dan would be responsible for disposal. Next, Dan does not have the legal right to enter Bob's property to do any trimming without Bob's consent (and the trimming would obviously need to be done from there). If a branch were to break from the tree and damage Bob's property, Dan would not be liable (unless Dan did something to aid the branch in breaking, or he knew the state of the tree on his side of the property line might result in damage to the neighbors property ). You remind me, that one reason I pointed out the difference between a rotting trunk and a rotting limb over someone else's property is that the law assumes that Don has the opportunity to inspect the tree on his property, but doesn't expect him to periodically go on Bob's property to check out the limbs there. Since this law was estabilished, they may have invented binoculars, or even drone-mini-helicopter with television cameras, but despite that, I don't think they hold Don liable for knowing the condition of limbs on someone else's property. There would be other special cases if the tree was planted after Bob moved in, but those don't apply here. Those of course, those are all legalities. At this point, the tree is in good condition, so no breakage is likely. Bob is insisting that Dan trim the tree and pay 100% of the bill (which, given there's a pool involved, is not insignificant), but Dan doesn't feel this is appropriate, and doesn't want to pay (and of course, he's not legally obligated to, so for now nothing's happening). Well Bob has more to lose than Don. What if his little granddaughter** is swimming there when the limb falls off, it hits her on the head, knocks her out, and she drowns? What if this happens to Bob? **It's about the children. It's always about the children. |
Tree on Property Line
On Thu, 26 May 2011 15:37:36 -0600, "WW"
wrote: I accidentally killed branches on one side of one of my trees. I was using weed killer or ground sterilizer, don't remember for getting rid of weeds. The next day I deep watered the tree. I must have sent the chemical down deep. Soon after that the limbs on that side of tree died. How ever the next year the branches sprouted out leaves again and got better in following years. ww Just yesterday I was asking aobut this at a garden shop. I sprayed weed killer on the grass, using the garden hose, and the first year everything was great. The second year my aim wasn't as good and I sprayed some on about 50 leaves of a poplar tree, and some of my cedar bushes. Killed the leaves and limited amount of branches that held them, and killed the cedar bushes. The curling of the hose made the sprayer twist around sometimes when I didnt' expect it. |
Tree on Property Line
On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote:
I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not mentioned: Tree owner's insurance company may want limb removed and pay for removal to avoid possible higher liability if it damages neighbor's property. Tree's owner would have to act because if he refused insurance company could hold him liable for higher damages if limb falls. There may be local laws, where if there is an imminent danger of the limb falling (property is unkempt), local authority may fine the owner and make him trim the offending tree. |
Tree on Property Line
On May 26, 7:37*pm, Frank wrote:
On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not mentioned: Tree owner's insurance company may want limb removed and pay for removal to avoid possible higher liability if it damages neighbor's property. Tree's owner would have to act because if he refused insurance company could hold him liable for higher damages if limb falls. There may be local laws, where if there is an imminent danger of the limb falling (property is unkempt), local authority may fine the owner and make him trim the offending tree. Read my reply further up the thread. It's been my experience that insurance companies will not pay for "preventative maintenance" even if it could prevent a *potential* damage claim later on. The key word there is *potential*. If the tree never falls, they'd never have to pay. If the homeowner cancelled the policy, they wouldn't have to pay. If the homeowner decides to cut the tree down himself, they wouldn't have to pay. If insurance companies started fixing stuff to prevent potential claims, they'd be mud-jacking sidewalks, replacing porch steps, paying for brake jobs, driving people to AA meetings, etc. etc. It's far cheaper for them to pay actual claims than to prevent potential ones. |
Tree on Property Line
On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:48:13 -0700 (PDT), John
wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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 Dan gives Bob permission to trim the tree, even if Bob needs to pay to have it done, Bob should consider himself fortunate. There have been many cases of "Dans" refusing to allow "Bobs" to trim "Dand's" tree, and many court cases when "Bob" has done so without "Dan's" permission. Just trim the tree, or have it trimmed and pay the bill. |
Tree on Property Line
John wrote:
I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). Point #1: When one owns real property (absent other considerations), he owns the property downward to the center of the earth and upwards to the heavens. (Other considerations include selling the aerial or mineral rights.) Point #2: When owns real property, he owns, sometimes temporarily, that which wanders onto his property - the so-called "right of capture" (think deer or wild game). Point #3: A tree branch hanging over one's property belongs to the property's owner and he is free to do with the branch as he sees fit. In doing so, however, he must take care not to damage the neighbor's property. That is, he should not do something to the intruding branch that imperils the rest of the tree on the neighbor's property. |
Tree on Property Line
On May 26, 11:42*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). Point #1: When one owns real property (absent other considerations), he owns the property downward to the center of the earth and upwards to the heavens. (Other considerations include selling the aerial or mineral rights.) Point #2: When owns real property, he owns, sometimes temporarily, that which wanders onto his property - the so-called "right of capture" (think deer or wild game). Point #3: A tree branch hanging over one's property belongs to the property's owner and he is free to do with the branch as he sees fit. In doing so, however, he must take care not to damage the neighbor's property. That is, he should not do something to the intruding branch that imperils the rest of the tree on the neighbor's property. +1... To the "three points"... If you want to have this encroaching limb issue dealt with once and for all in my area of the US you would call the local city/town arborist/tree warden and that official could ORDER the property owner on whose land the tree is growing to completely remove the offending limbs from the tree at the tree owner's expense or if the tree is in that official's opinion unsafe in that it is creating a hazard on abutter's properties or is in danger of falling due to rot or disease condemn the entire tree and order its total removal... That official's order/opinion is final and binding... ~~ Evan |
Tree on Property Line
On May 27, 1:05*am, Evan wrote:
On May 26, 11:42*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). Point #1: When one owns real property (absent other considerations), he owns the property downward to the center of the earth and upwards to the heavens. (Other considerations include selling the aerial or mineral rights.) Point #2: When owns real property, he owns, sometimes temporarily, that which wanders onto his property - the so-called "right of capture" (think deer or wild game). Point #3: A tree branch hanging over one's property belongs to the property's owner and he is free to do with the branch as he sees fit. In doing so, however, he must take care not to damage the neighbor's property. That is, he should not do something to the intruding branch that imperils the rest of the tree on the neighbor's property. +1... *To the "three points"... If you want to have this encroaching limb issue dealt with once and for all in my area of the US you would call the local city/town arborist/tree warden and that official could ORDER the property owner on whose land the tree is growing to completely remove the offending limbs from the tree at the tree owner's expense or if the tree is in that official's opinion unsafe in that it is creating a hazard on abutter's properties or is in danger of falling due to rot or disease condemn the entire tree and order its total removal... That official's order/opinion is final and binding... ~~ Evan "...that official could ORDER the property owner on whose land the tree is growing to completely remove the offending limbs" The key word being *could*. The OP wrote "one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief." and "Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed". We don't know enough to speculate as to whether that official *would* order that any limbs be removed. |
Tree on Property Line
On 5/26/2011 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On May 26, 7:37 pm, wrote: On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not mentioned: Tree owner's insurance company may want limb removed and pay for removal to avoid possible higher liability if it damages neighbor's property. Tree's owner would have to act because if he refused insurance company could hold him liable for higher damages if limb falls. There may be local laws, where if there is an imminent danger of the limb falling (property is unkempt), local authority may fine the owner and make him trim the offending tree. Read my reply further up the thread. It's been my experience that insurance companies will not pay for "preventative maintenance" even if it could prevent a *potential* damage claim later on. The key word there is *potential*. If the tree never falls, they'd never have to pay. If the homeowner cancelled the policy, they wouldn't have to pay. If the homeowner decides to cut the tree down himself, they wouldn't have to pay. If insurance companies started fixing stuff to prevent potential claims, they'd be mud-jacking sidewalks, replacing porch steps, paying for brake jobs, driving people to AA meetings, etc. etc. It's far cheaper for them to pay actual claims than to prevent potential ones. I would agree with you but based this comment on an incident that actually took place. I'm not sure of specifics but insurance company paid a relative to have limb removed that was threatening his neighbor's garage. |
Tree on Property Line
On May 27, 7:08*am, Frank wrote:
On 5/26/2011 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On May 26, 7:37 pm, *wrote: On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not mentioned: Tree owner's insurance company may want limb removed and pay for removal to avoid possible higher liability if it damages neighbor's property. Tree's owner would have to act because if he refused insurance company could hold him liable for higher damages if limb falls. There may be local laws, where if there is an imminent danger of the limb falling (property is unkempt), local authority may fine the owner and make him trim the offending tree. Read my reply further up the thread. It's been my experience that insurance companies will not pay for "preventative maintenance" even if it could prevent a *potential* damage claim later on. The key word there is *potential*. If the tree never falls, they'd never have to pay. If the homeowner cancelled the policy, they wouldn't have to pay. If the homeowner decides to cut the tree down himself, they wouldn't have to pay. If insurance companies started fixing stuff to prevent potential claims, they'd be mud-jacking sidewalks, replacing porch steps, paying for brake jobs, driving people to AA meetings, etc. etc. It's far cheaper for them to pay actual claims than to prevent potential ones. I would agree with you but based this comment on an incident that actually took place. *I'm not sure of specifics but insurance company paid a relative to have limb removed that was threatening his neighbor's garage.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, that just means that there is no consistency in how ins co's handle this. My ins co wouldn't pay to have limbs removed even after a neighbor's limb came down on my house *and* they got an "expert opinion" that others should be removed. All they did was notify the neighbor's ins co of the problem with the tree, including a veiled threat that they would expect the other ins co to pay for any damage should further damage at a later date. |
Tree on Property Line
On Fri, 27 May 2011 02:39:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote: On May 27, 1:05*am, Evan wrote: On May 26, 11:42*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). Point #1: When one owns real property (absent other considerations), he owns the property downward to the center of the earth and upwards to the heavens. (Other considerations include selling the aerial or mineral rights.) Point #2: When owns real property, he owns, sometimes temporarily, that which wanders onto his property - the so-called "right of capture" (think deer or wild game). Point #3: A tree branch hanging over one's property belongs to the property's owner and he is free to do with the branch as he sees fit. In doing so, however, he must take care not to damage the neighbor's property. That is, he should not do something to the intruding branch that imperils the rest of the tree on the neighbor's property. +1... *To the "three points"... If you want to have this encroaching limb issue dealt with once and for all in my area of the US you would call the local city/town arborist/tree warden and that official could ORDER the property owner on whose land the tree is growing to completely remove the offending limbs from the tree at the tree owner's expense or if the tree is in that official's opinion unsafe in that it is creating a hazard on abutter's properties or is in danger of falling due to rot or disease condemn the entire tree and order its total removal... That official's order/opinion is final and binding... ~~ Evan "...that official could ORDER the property owner on whose land the tree is growing to completely remove the offending limbs" The key word being *could*. The OP wrote "one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief." and "Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed". We don't know enough to speculate as to whether that official *would* order that any limbs be removed. Not only that, it seems clear that different parts of the US have at least slightly different rules and the OP is in Canada anyhow. Almost all of this is state law. The US federal govt. has no laws on trees unless they are on fed property or tall enough to interfere with airplanes. And local jurisdictions are subservient to the states they are in. I don't know much about Canada, except that it has more differences from the US than I thought when I was 10 or 20. |
Tree on Property Line
On Fri, 27 May 2011 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote: On May 27, 7:08*am, Frank wrote: On 5/26/2011 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On May 26, 7:37 pm, *wrote: On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not mentioned: Tree owner's insurance company may want limb removed and pay for removal to avoid possible higher liability if it damages neighbor's property. Tree's owner would have to act because if he refused insurance company could hold him liable for higher damages if limb falls. There may be local laws, where if there is an imminent danger of the limb falling (property is unkempt), local authority may fine the owner and make him trim the offending tree. Read my reply further up the thread. It's been my experience that insurance companies will not pay for "preventative maintenance" even if it could prevent a *potential* damage claim later on. The key word there is *potential*. If the tree never falls, they'd never have to pay. If the homeowner cancelled the policy, they wouldn't have to pay. If the homeowner decides to cut the tree down himself, they wouldn't have to pay. If insurance companies started fixing stuff to prevent potential claims, they'd be mud-jacking sidewalks, replacing porch steps, paying for brake jobs, driving people to AA meetings, etc. etc. It's far cheaper for them to pay actual claims than to prevent potential ones. I would agree with you but based this comment on an incident that actually took place. *I'm not sure of specifics but insurance company paid a relative to have limb removed that was threatening his neighbor's garage.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, that just means that there is no consistency in how ins co's handle this. My ins co Haven't you switched the story here. In Frank's story it was Frank's relation R's tree that was threatening a neighbor's garage, R threatening N and R's insurance paying, not N threatening R and R's insurance paying. wouldn't pay to have limbs removed even after a neighbor's limb came down on my house *and* they got an "expert opinion" that others should be removed. All they did was notify the neighbor's ins co of the problem with the tree, including a veiled threat that they would expect the other ins co to pay for any damage should further damage at a later date. |
Tree on Property Line
On May 26, 12:35*pm, "
wrote: On May 26, 12:12*pm, "chaniarts" wrote: As for the branches over the pool, it's the pool property owner's responsibility to trim the branches back to the property line. A couple things come into play. *First, if it's easier to access and trim from one property than the other, then a reasonable neighbor would allow access. * Second, in most cases, it would be better for the tree, aesthetics, etc for the branch to be cut off back at the tree, which in this case is on the other property. * But there is no obligation that the neighbor do it. In fact, you may find that if the work cannot in practice be done without setting foot on the neighbour's property, then the neighbour can be ordered to allow passage. I was told this in the context of work on my foundation, which is a few inches from the property line, but in fact I got on fine with the neighbours and I passed on their concerns to my contractors and all was hunky dory. Lots of caveats he the work itself must be urgent in some way, etc. Moot unless the neighbour refuses to allow you (or your arborists) climb from his side and there's no other way they can do it. If it comes to that, you really need to be talking to a lawyer, unfortunately. But basically, the advice I've always heard is per the current consensus: it's up to you - er, Bob - to have the tree trimmed the way he wants it, at his expense. The bit about the neighbour "owning" the resulting wood I'm not so clear on. Maybe Bob needs to offer it to him, and if it's useful firewood then I certainly would, but as for demanding that he pay for removal or take it onto his property I'd want a lawyer's opinion on paper about that. Obviously any of these lawyer options will pretty much end any hope of a friendly relationship thereafter, but if the neighbour is being obstructionist about reasonable requests, then you're kinda heading there anyway, and better to be the one on solid legal ground. Have the work done by a certified arborist, and they'll probably want to do a tree health report before they start. That covers your butt from claims that the trimming caused any future problems. Give the neighbour a copy of the report, costs you 10 cents to photocopy and it's worth big bucks to him whether he appreciates it or not. Chip C Toronto |
Tree on Property Line
If you don't own the tree but it intrudes over your land you can prune
it in a workmanlike fashion ( proper season, proper pruning technique) so as not to injure the tree. Just the same it's best to work together on this. |
Tree on Property Line
On May 27, 11:54*am, mm wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03 wrote: On May 27, 7:08*am, Frank wrote: On 5/26/2011 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On May 26, 7:37 pm, *wrote: On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not mentioned: Tree owner's insurance company may want limb removed and pay for removal to avoid possible higher liability if it damages neighbor's property. Tree's owner would have to act because if he refused insurance company could hold him liable for higher damages if limb falls. There may be local laws, where if there is an imminent danger of the limb falling (property is unkempt), local authority may fine the owner and make him trim the offending tree. Read my reply further up the thread. It's been my experience that insurance companies will not pay for "preventative maintenance" even if it could prevent a *potential* damage claim later on. The key word there is *potential*. If the tree never falls, they'd never have to pay. If the homeowner cancelled the policy, they wouldn't have to pay. If the homeowner decides to cut the tree down himself, they wouldn't have to pay. If insurance companies started fixing stuff to prevent potential claims, they'd be mud-jacking sidewalks, replacing porch steps, paying for brake jobs, driving people to AA meetings, etc. etc. It's far cheaper for them to pay actual claims than to prevent potential ones.. I would agree with you but based this comment on an incident that actually took place. *I'm not sure of specifics but insurance company paid a relative to have limb removed that was threatening his neighbor's garage.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, that just means that there is no consistency in how ins co's handle this. My ins co Haven't you switched the story here. *In Frank's story it was Frank's relation R's tree that was threatening a neighbor's garage, R threatening N and R's insurance paying, not N threatening R and R's insurance paying. * wouldn't pay to have limbs removed even after a neighbor's limb came down on my house *and* they got an "expert opinion" that others should be removed. All they did was notify the neighbor's ins co of the problem with the tree, including a veiled threat that they would expect the other ins co to pay for any damage should further damage at a later date. L M N O P |
Tree on Property Line
"beecrofter" wrote in message
... If you don't own the tree but it intrudes over your land you can prune it in a workmanlike fashion ( proper season, proper pruning technique) so as not to injure the tree. Just the same it's best to work together on this. Hang your neighbor in effigy on the offending limb. He'll cut it down soon enough . . . (-: -- Bobby G. |
Tree on Property Line
"John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Steve |
Tree on Property Line
On May 27, 5:39*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On May 27, 1:05*am, Evan wrote: On May 26, 11:42*pm, "HeyBub" wrote: John wrote: I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. *There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. *The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, * Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). Point #1: When one owns real property (absent other considerations), he owns the property downward to the center of the earth and upwards to the heavens. (Other considerations include selling the aerial or mineral rights.) Point #2: When owns real property, he owns, sometimes temporarily, that which wanders onto his property - the so-called "right of capture" (think deer or wild game). Point #3: A tree branch hanging over one's property belongs to the property's owner and he is free to do with the branch as he sees fit. In doing so, however, he must take care not to damage the neighbor's property. That is, he should not do something to the intruding branch that imperils the rest of the tree on the neighbor's property. +1... *To the "three points"... If you want to have this encroaching limb issue dealt with once and for all in my area of the US you would call the local city/town arborist/tree warden and that official could ORDER the property owner on whose land the tree is growing to completely remove the offending limbs from the tree at the tree owner's expense or if the tree is in that official's opinion unsafe in that it is creating a hazard on abutter's properties or is in danger of falling due to rot or disease condemn the entire tree and order its total removal... That official's order/opinion is final and binding... ~~ Evan "...that official could ORDER the property owner on whose land the tree is growing to completely remove the offending limbs" The key word being *could*. The OP wrote *"one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief." and "Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed". We don't know enough to speculate as to whether that official *would* order that any limbs be removed. The official may issue an order based on the complaint of encroachment and ORDER the owner of the tree to remove the limb all the way back to the tree trunk to once and for all solve that specific encroachment complaint... The tree limbs in question are clearly causing Bob some "grief" and are therefore impacting Bob's lawful use and enjoyment of his land and the improvements made thereto... Ordering the removal of the overhanging limbs above Bob's land would not impact Dan's use or enjoyment of Dan's land... I have heard enough to determine that if Bob properly documented his attempts at requesting Dan either correct the encroachment or grant explicit permission to Bob to do the work necessary entirely at Bob's cost, by means of certified letter return receipt/signature requested, and Dan either failed to respond at all after two or three timely attempts on Bob's part to obtain a response from Dan that the arborist/tree wardens in my state would issue a mandatory ORDER for Dan to remove the offending tree limb all the way back to the trunk because it is encroaching onto the property of an abutter, causing a nuisance to that abutter and reasonable requests made by the effected abutter have gone unanswered the only remedy the arborist/tree warden is issuing an order for the limb to be removed -- if that order goes unanswered, the tree will likely be ordered removed and fines levied over and above recovering the costs of the removal... Not that very many homeowners know enough about such issues to successfully document a problem like this beyond having a "gentleman's discussion" with the neighbor about it which is never the final resolution unless there are uninterested 3rd party witnesses to the discussion who can provide testimony to clear up any issues resulting from differing interpretations as to aspects of the discussion between Bob and Dan... You can always try asking Dan to remove the tree branch but if you don't see him cutting it off within a week you might need to write an official letter asking him to do so if it is something that is really all that important to you as some neighbors really do need to be ordered and told to do things by the authorities before they will take care of the things they are responsible for... ~~ Evan |
Tree on Property Line
On May 27, 11:17*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. *How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Steve @Steve: Because unless you made the *whole* tree disappear and could magically make a fully grown in and rooted lawn appear over the area where the tree *was* then there would be "prima facie" evidence of where the limbs used to be located on the tree as well as evidence of the recent time frame of the removal... Plus there is the whole issue of not leaving any witnesses to the removal process behind... ~~ Evan |
Tree on Property Line
On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote: "John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off at the property line anyhow. Anyone who says that's not the law should say what country and state or province they are talking about. No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post. It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or not. Steve |
Tree on Property Line
On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:25:32 -0400, mm wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B" wrote: "John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off at the property line anyhow. Anyone who says that's not the law should say what country and state or province they are talking about. No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post. It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or not. Just don't do it in Charlotte. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...oper-tree.html $4000 fine, $100 per branch. |
Tree on Property Line
On Sat, 28 May 2011 17:42:24 -0500, "
wrote: On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:25:32 -0400, mm wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B" wrote: "John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off at the property line anyhow. Anyone who says that's not the law should say what country and state or province they are talking about. No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post. It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or not. Just don't do it in Charlotte. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...oper-tree.html $4000 fine, $100 per branch. Wow. At first I assumed they were trimming city-owned trees as if they owned them. This paragraph could use some more details "Trees planted as a result of the ordinance are subject to the fines if they are excessively trimmed or pruned. These include trees on commercial property or street trees. They do not include a private residence." How do they know if they are planted as a result of the ordinance? Did they get a subsidy? Was the church notified about the rules at the time? Or do they just publish it in the newspaper one day or once a year and expect everyone to read it closely enough to know it appplies to them? "Trees on commercial property or street trees. They do not include a private residence." Where does that put trees on church property or non-profit hospital property. By email, Paul, did you say you were moving to Charlotte? |
Tree on Property Line
On May 28, 6:42*pm, "
wrote: On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:25:32 -0400, mm wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B" wrote: "John" wrote in message .... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. *How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off at the property line anyhow. *Anyone who says that's not the law should say what country and state or province they are talking about. No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post. It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or not. Just don't do it in Charlotte. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...rch-fined-for-... $4000 fine, $100 per branch. That story from Charlotte sounds like an excellent test case for the "tree ordinance" in that city... It sounds as if Charlotte is trying to dictate how the church must do its landscaping... The church could quite easily defeat this tree ordinance on the basis that the method they use to trim their trees back is an aspect of the practice of their religion and is therefore protected from regulation under the First Amendment protections... While the trees that were trimmed may in fact be damaged, the pictures posted with that article didn't show enough detail about how and where they were cut... But somehow this smells like the city wanting to extract its pound of flesh from an otherwise tax exempt organization... ~~ Evan |
Tree on Property Line
On Sat, 28 May 2011 16:21:42 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote: On May 28, 6:42Â*pm, " wrote: On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:25:32 -0400, mm wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B" wrote: "John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. Â*How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off at the property line anyhow. Â*Anyone who says that's not the law should say what country and state or province they are talking about. No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post. It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or not. Just don't do it in Charlotte. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...rch-fined-for-... $4000 fine, $100 per branch. That story from Charlotte sounds like an excellent test case for the "tree ordinance" in that city... It sounds as if Charlotte is trying to dictate how the church must do its landscaping... The church could quite easily defeat this tree ordinance on the basis that the method they use to trim their trees back is an aspect of the practice of their religion and is therefore protected from regulation under the First Amendment protections... While the trees that were trimmed may in fact be damaged, the pictures posted with that article didn't show enough detail about how and where they were cut... But somehow this smells like the city wanting to extract its pound of flesh from an otherwise tax exempt organization... ~~ Evan MANY cities have "tree ordinances" - and removal of hardwood trees, in particular, from a property requires permission from the city. Also: Particularly on commercial and institutional properties, the landscaping, including the trees, is part of the registered "site plan" which comprises part of the "building permit". The site plan includes grading, stormwater management, and landscaping "features" such as trees and ornamental plantings, as well as burms, parking areas etc - and to change ANY of that requires permission from the building or planning departments. Usually there is a minimum number of trees that must be planted/maintained . A case could possibly be made for removat of trees that were planted in excess of the requirement, as long as they were not trees that were specified as "required" in that location. However, I would err on the side of caution and check with city hall before removing or altering in any major way, any tree on such a property. I live dangerously and trim low-hanging branches from city owned trees on the boulevard in front of and beside my house when they get low enough to comb my hair when walking under them on the sidewalk or when mowing the grass -, or when they interfere with trees growing on my own property and the city crews have not done anything about it. They generally trim the street side to keep the busses and garbage trucks from catching and tearing off limbs but appear to be blind to the "pedestrian" side. |
Tree on Property Line
On Sat, 28 May 2011 16:21:42 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote: On May 28, 6:42*pm, " wrote: On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:25:32 -0400, mm wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B" wrote: "John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. *How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off at the property line anyhow. *Anyone who says that's not the law should say what country and state or province they are talking about. No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post. It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or not. Just don't do it in Charlotte. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...rch-fined-for-... $4000 fine, $100 per branch. That story from Charlotte sounds like an excellent test case for the "tree ordinance" in that city... It sounds as if Charlotte is trying to dictate how the church must do its landscaping... The church could quite easily defeat this tree ordinance on the basis that the method they use to trim their trees back is an aspect of the practice of their religion and is therefore protected from regulation under the First Amendment protections... While the trees that were trimmed may in fact be damaged, the pictures posted with that article didn't show enough detail about how and where they were cut... But somehow this smells like the city wanting to extract its pound of flesh from an otherwise tax exempt organization... I don't know if you're familiar with Crepe Myrtle, but it's a rather nice flowering tree that grows rather prodigiously. It's often hacked back to its trunks (known as "Crepe Murder") to keep it woody and from growing too large/fast. The article mentioned that they cut it back like that every few years. That's pretty normal pruning for Crepe Myrtle. It does *not* permanently damage the tree. In fact, the city does it with the Crepe Myrtles in the boulevards, here. |
Tree on Property Line
On May 29, 12:07*am, wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011 16:21:42 -0700 (PDT), Evan wrote: On May 28, 6:42*pm, " wrote: On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:25:32 -0400, mm wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:14 -0700, "Steve B" wrote: "John" wrote in message ... I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: And I'm curious about THIS situation, hypothetical, of course. Suppose the part of the tree that was hanging over the non-owner's property was to suddenly disappear in the night, or say, over a weekend when the owner was away. *How could the owner prove that there ever was a limb there in the first place without incriminating himself and saying that there was this limb that was endangering his neighbor? I like hypotheticals, but here I don't see great advantage, since the person above whose land the limb was had the right to cut the limb off at the property line anyhow. *Anyone who says that's not the law should say what country and state or province they are talking about. No one has done that for the general rule except the op's later post. It would be a very quick permanent solution, but if you then have to live next to that neighbor, I guess it could get sticky from there. Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or not. Just don't do it in Charlotte. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...rch-fined-for-.... $4000 fine, $100 per branch. That story from Charlotte sounds like an excellent test case for the "tree ordinance" in that city... *It sounds as if Charlotte is trying to dictate how the church must do its landscaping... The church could quite easily defeat this tree ordinance on the basis that the method they use to trim their trees back is an aspect of the practice of their religion and is therefore protected from regulation under the First Amendment protections... While the trees that were trimmed may in fact be damaged, the pictures posted with that article didn't show enough detail about how and where they were cut... *But somehow this smells like the city wanting to extract its pound of flesh from an otherwise tax exempt organization... ~~ Evan *MANY cities have "tree ordinances" - and removal of hardwood trees, in particular, from a property requires permission from the city. Also: Particularly on commercial and institutional properties, the landscaping, including the trees, is part of the registered "site plan" which comprises part of the "building permit". The site plan includes grading, stormwater management, and landscaping "features" such as trees and ornamental plantings, as well as burms, parking areas etc - and to change ANY of that requires permission from the building or planning departments. Usually there is a minimum number of trees that must be planted/maintained . A case could possibly be made for removat of trees that were planted in excess of the requirement, as long as they were not trees that were specified as "required" in that location. However, I would err on the side of caution and check with city hall before removing or altering in any major way, any tree on such a property. I live dangerously and trim low-hanging branches from city owned trees on the boulevard in front of and beside my house when they get low enough to comb my hair when walking under them on the sidewalk or when mowing the grass -, or when they interfere with trees growing on my own property and the city crews have not done anything about it. They generally trim the street side to keep the busses and garbage trucks from catching and tearing off limbs but appear to be blind to the "pedestrian" side. "tree ordinances" are irrelevant if this church made the argument that such an ordinance impacted its ability to freely practice its religion which is a protected right under the first amendment... it also seems that some ordinances only cover removal and replacement of removed trees but leave what constitutes "trimming" open to too much interpretation... a "trimmed" tree is *not* removed if it remains alive in the same spot even though its size may have been greatly reduced... around my area of the country trees have to be kept trimmed so that there is a minimum of 6 feet from the lowest branch to the surface of the ground level wherever a tree is located near a sidewalk, walkway or pedestrian traffic, this is so people walking will not catch their head on low branches and you generally see 7 or 8 feet from the ground to the lowest branch overhanging a sidewalk or walkway because people over 6 feet tall are somewhat common... ~~ Evan |
Tree on Property Line
On 5/26/2011 11:48 AM, John wrote:
I'm curious about people's opinions on the following not-so- hypothetical situation: If you have two neighbors, call them Dan and Bob. There is a tree whose trunk is on Dan's property, but there are branches that overhang onto Bob's property, in fact, one branch hangs over Bob's pool causing Bob some grief. The tree is mature, and existed before either moved into their houses, Bob wants that branch (and several others) trimmed, but Dan does not want to trim the tree on his property. Who's responsibility is it to have the branch trimmed? 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). Generally, each property owner trims those limbs which are above his property. And, generally, one can trim as they wish...in some locales, it is a code violation (probably to prevent spiteful acts) to mutilate a tree (as in trimming all of the growth from one side). Ideally, the two neighbors could go together and either have the tree trimmed or removed. An arborist can thin out limbs so their is more light and dead twigs are removed, and do it so that the tree is still healthy and attractive. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter