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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

"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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.