replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really inaccurate info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under common law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if 1) they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling; 2) and if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling tree would
result in the type of injury sustained.

In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect their land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very large and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on A's land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a theory of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to remove the
danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has assumed the risk and
can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on the shed, and
the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the nuisance and A cannot
collect damages to his shed.


--
for full context, visit http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ed-535499-.htm

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really inaccurate info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under common law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if 1) they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling; 2) and if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling tree would
result in the type of injury sustained.

In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect their land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very large and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on A's land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a theory of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to remove the
danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has assumed the risk and
can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on the shed, and
the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the nuisance and A cannot
collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree he
can sue - and win.

On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really inaccurate info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under common law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if 1) they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling; 2) and if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling tree would
result in the type of injury sustained.

In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect their land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very large and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on A's land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a theory of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to remove the
danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has assumed the risk and
can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on the shed, and
the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the nuisance and A cannot
collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree he
can sue - and win.


Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law. In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.


Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .
--
Snag

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law. In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.

Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .
--
Snag


WTF?! You were the good neighbor, he was the bad neighbor. You were very reasonable. Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law. In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.

Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .
--
Snag


WTF?! You were the good neighbor, he was the bad neighbor. You were very reasonable. Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster
Its bad enough when a 2" diameter branch from a 100 foot oak comes
down butt end first on a roof. Through the roof and damaged the
plaster ceiling below.

On 9/2/2016 9:09 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law. In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.

Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .



WTF?! You were the good neighbor, he was the bad neighbor. You were very
reasonable. Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my
brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking mess
when it happens. o_O


Our neighbor's tree fell into the back yard of the neighbor east of
them. It was a huge tree, maybe 50 feet tall. It took out the fence
but didn't actually hit the neighbors house. The tree company that came
to clean up the mess needed one of those giant tree cranes to get it out
of both back yards. I'm not sure who's insurance paid for it, though.


--
Maggie

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 22:59:46 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 9/2/2016 10:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/2/2016 10:09 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my
brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking
mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster


Couple of months ago I had the tree in my front lawn taken down to avoid
that. Last week had another trimmed.

A couple summers ago we had 2 trees in our front yard trimmed, and this
big oak tree that sits on the property line. We trim the branches that
hang over our property and the neighbor trims the ones that hangs over
her property. It's one giant old oak tree, too.

So, after trimming all the branches on both sides, all that remains is a
tree trunk!!!! LOL

When a tree falls on your house or your neighbors house, it's an ACT OF
GOD. God wanted to make someone suffer and he did it. God is NOT a nice
guy, in fact he's an asshole!

The solution is to Sue God, but you will never win, because God has all
the best lawyers from all of history, even though they are all living in
hell now..... (along with all the dead politicians).....

On 9/2/2016 10:09 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster


Couple of months ago I had the tree in my front lawn taken down to avoid
that. Last week had another trimmed.

On 9/2/2016 6:18 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law. In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.


Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .


You are never going to hear many stories that go "I saw my neighbors
tree was dangerous, I talked to him about it, he had it taken down,
neither house was damaged, and we are still goo old beer drinking
buddies to this very day." But there are plenty of them.

On 9/2/2016 10:51 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/2/2016 10:09 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my
brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking
mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster


Couple of months ago I had the tree in my front lawn taken down to avoid
that. Last week had another trimmed.

A couple summers ago we had 2 trees in our front yard trimmed, and this
big oak tree that sits on the property line. We trim the branches that
hang over our property and the neighbor trims the ones that hangs over
her property. It's one giant old oak tree, too.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 23:19:15 -0400, wrote:
A couple summers ago we had 2 trees in our front
yard trimmed, and this big oak tree that sits on the
property line. We trim the branches that hang over
our property and the neighbor trims the ones that
hangs over her property. It's one giant old oak tree,
too.

So, after trimming all the branches on both sides, all
that remains is a tree trunk!!!! LOL

Naa.. they only trimmed the rotten, broken branches, and limbs that
were to close to the house.

--
Maggie

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 10:00:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law. In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs..
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.

Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .
--
Snag

WTF?! You were the good neighbor, he was the bad neighbor. You were very reasonable. Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

Its bad enough when a 2" diameter branch from a 100 foot oak comes
down butt end first on a roof. Through the roof and damaged the
plaster ceiling below.


At my brother's house up the mountain from mine, he had a 4" diameter hickory limb come through the roof and through the middle of the living room ceiling. It happened about 5 years ago when his housemate WT was still alive and sitting on the couch with Sandy the goofy little dog. It scared the hell out of WT who was watching TV and the dog crawled up under the couch and wouldn't come out. That roof had leaks everywhere after a number of limbs from several trees fell on it. The insulation got wet and the sheetrock ceiling came down in several rooms in the house. It was a mess. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:14:05 PM UTC-4, Greetings From The Future wrote:
replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really inaccurate info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under common law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if 1) they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling; 2) and if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling tree would
result in the type of injury sustained.



That part is correct.



In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect their land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very large and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on A's land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a theory of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.


You can sue all you want, but it's unlikely you will win. In most
areas of the US, you have the right to trim the portion of the tree
that is overhanging your property. You neighbor is not required to
pay for it just because you don't like it, or some of it grows over
the property line. If the portion is
dead, decaying, clearly poses a danger to your property, or actually
interferes with your use of your property in some real way, then
you can win. Just because you think it's a "nuisance" doesn't
make it one under the law. A better example of a "nuisance" is where
the roots from the neighbor's tree are pushing up your sidewalk or
damaging your foundation. A large tree on a neighbor's property,
where some of it extends over the property line onto your large lot,
but isn't interfering with your use of the property, that I don't
think you're going to win, ie be able to force the neighbor to trim it.
If you could, you'd have all kinds of OCD neighbors forcing people
to spend all kinds of money trimming stuff.




If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to remove the
danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has assumed the risk and
can collect nothing.


I think this is mostly BS too. If there is a partially dying tree
in your neighbor's yard that could fall over and hit your house
what self help are you supposed to do? Hire a tree service to go on
their property and cut down the tree? In such a situation, if you
point it out to the neighbor, you've done enough. I would send a
letter.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 3:05:26 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 10:00:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 8:18:51 PM UTC-5, Terry Coombs wrote:
Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law. In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.

Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .
--
Snag

WTF?! You were the good neighbor, he was the bad neighbor. You were very reasonable. Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

Its bad enough when a 2" diameter branch from a 100 foot oak comes
down butt end first on a roof. Through the roof and damaged the
plaster ceiling below.


At my brother's house up the mountain from mine, he had a 4" diameter hickory limb come through the roof and through the middle of the living room ceiling. It happened about 5 years ago when his housemate WT was still alive and sitting on the couch with Sandy the goofy little dog. It scared the hell out of WT who was watching TV and the dog crawled up under the couch and wouldn't come out. That roof had leaks everywhere after a number of limbs from several trees fell on it. The insulation got wet and the sheetrock ceiling came down in several rooms in the house. It was a mess. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

When my (luckily now an adult) son was a toddler, he was in one of these swings:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41i0xuq7wnL.jpg

If you have ever tried to get a kid out of one of these, you know how difficult it can
sometimes be. We were in a neighbor's yard and his kid was up in the fort section
of the swing set.

From the kitchen window we heard his wife call out "Lunch is ready!€�. I wrestled my kid
out of the swing and he retrieved his kid from the fort. We had barely made it into his
house when a huge limb from a tree next door came down on the swing set, crushing it.
It came down directly in line with the main beam, destroying the swing set and fort from
end to end.

All we heard was a loud crack and barely had time to turn around before the limb
was on the ground with the mangled swing set under it. There is absolutely no
way either of us would have had time to get our kids out in time to save them once
the "crack" was heard.

We said a lot of thank you prayers that day.

Cousin It-Still-Makes-Me-Shiver Monster

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:57:36 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:


You are never going to hear many stories that go "I saw my neighbors
tree was dangerous, I talked to him about it, he had it taken down,
neither house was damaged, and we are still goo old beer drinking
buddies to this very day." But there are plenty of them.

If you drink enough beer, a fallen tree on your house dont matter,
unless the tree landed inside your kitchen and the branches or the tree
trunk are blocking the door on your refrigerator, where all the beer is
kept........

Of course, there's always the corner bar, and they always got plenty of
beer....... But if the tree fell after bar closing time, you're screwed,
unless you can break enough branches to get to your fridge, or find your
chainsaw before you sober up........

And dont forget, beer drinking buddies are like family. If they all get
together, and hook enough ropes and chains to their motorcycles, they
might be able to lift that tree off the refrigerator. After all, IT'S
ALL FOR THE SAKE OF THE BEER!

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 10:51:24 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/2/2016 10:09 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Heck, in my neighborhood, we have a lot of trees. Both me and my brother have had trees in our yards fall on our homes. It's a fraking mess when it happens. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Tree Monster

Couple of months ago I had the tree in my front lawn taken down to avoid
that. Last week had another trimmed.


Heck, I don't have to worry about that here at the center. There are some small trees in the courtyards and no big ones near the outer perimeter of the SNF. If the power is knocked out during a storm, there is a very large Kohler genset. I don't know the kw so I'll have to remember to ask one of the maintenance men. The gol dern transfer switch is one of the largest I've seen. If I was able, I could crawl inside the cabinet if it was empty. The power doesn't go off that often here but when it does, the digital cable boxes, Internet service and WiFi take a while to reset. Last year the Internet was down for three days until I rolled over to the administrator's office and explained how to reset all the network gear. I recommended a small UPS for the network equipment which I may have to donate from my large collection of the dang things. I can't live without Internet service, I hate bingo. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Network Monster

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 2:38:14 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

When my (luckily now an adult) son was a toddler, he was in one of these swings:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41i0xuq7wnL.jpg

If you have ever tried to get a kid out of one of these, you know how difficult it can
sometimes be. We were in a neighbor's yard and his kid was up in the fort section
of the swing set.

From the kitchen window we heard his wife call out "Lunch is ready!€�. I wrestled my kid
out of the swing and he retrieved his kid from the fort. We had barely made it into his
house when a huge limb from a tree next door came down on the swing set, crushing it.
It came down directly in line with the main beam, destroying the swing set and fort from
end to end.

All we heard was a loud crack and barely had time to turn around before the limb
was on the ground with the mangled swing set under it. There is absolutely no
way either of us would have had time to get our kids out in time to save them once
the "crack" was heard.

We said a lot of thank you prayers that day.

Cousin It-Still-Makes-Me-Shiver Monster


It's strange how things like that happen. If you're a religious person, you may believe a higher power like a guardian angel intervened. I've had odd feelings that caused me to make a different choice as to what move I would make as I travel through this world and it saved me. I think there is some kind of extra sensory perception because it's hit me and my brother a lot of times. We call each other and say something like,"Have you spoken to Sue today because I have an odd feeling. You too huh?" It turns out Sue was in an auto accident and hurt really bad the same time the hairs on the back of our necks stood up. Before CID on phones, I'd often pick up the phone,"Hello Jane. How did you know it was me? I was just thinking about you." Spooky.. I'm glad your son survived into adulthood. I'm sure he grew up to be a fine young man with a wonderful dad like you. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Spooky Monster

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:18:46 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info. The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid
spam" above. There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance
problems
and resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well
under common law.

FTR, NYS has codified all of its law and doesn't depend on common law
for anything. Although I suppose they might find helpful examples from
common law, they're not binding. I mention this only to tout NYS.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for
trees falling if
1) they know or should have known that the tree was in danger of
falling; 2) and if the owner of said tree knows or should have
known that the falling tree would result in the type of injury
sustained. In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can
protect
their land (and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land. Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree
under a theory of nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has
assumed the risk and can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the
nuisance and A cannot collect damages to his shed.

If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't

No objection to your post except that: Everyone says "registered
letter" but when I was a mailman, I learned that the difference
between a certified letter and a registered letter was that registered
cost more money and included insurance on the contents, and when the
contents are only text, there is no point to insuring it. They told
us this specifically during training. Still true.

http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm100/extra-services.htm

open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree
he can sue - and win.

A is entitled to remove any part of O's tree that overhangs A's
property, but not a bit more of course. He or the person he hires
may not go without permission on O's land to do this. The part
removed doesn't have to be in danger of falling. A doesn't need any
reason, although it might well make the tree look ugly and probably
both A and O have to look at it.

Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

About 30 years ago when we lived in Memphis , our neighbor had a very
large tree right on the property line . That tree was splitting badly , and
I asked him repeatedly to get it taken care of before it fell on our house .
He didn't , it did , my insurance paid me , then recouped from his . His
went after him for all or part of the cost , because he knew or should have
reasonably known this was going to happen ... Next thing you know , we ain't
friends any more and there's a 6 foot chain link fence between our
properties . Talking with the neighbor doesn't always work - but it's a good
place to start .

True. But here's another example like yours. When my friend was in
law school he had some sort of summer job on Staten Island. Staten
Island was only accessible from NJ by bridge, or from NYC by ferry
until 1964, and still had farms there until then. But the Verrazano
Bridge made it accessible and commutable from to many people who'd
never owned their own homes before. In some n'hoods, two houses
would share one driveway, which would split in two behind the houses
so each person could drive into his own garage. My friend saw one
case where one neighbor built a fence, not just between the
properties, but between the properties and down the middle of the
driveway. So neither could use it! Of course this isn't
legal and each owner has an easement on the half of the driveway he
doesn't own but needs to reach his garage, so I'm sure the judge made
the first guy tear down the fence.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:33:20 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 2:38:14 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

When my (luckily now an adult) son was a toddler, he was in one of these swings:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41i0xuq7wnL.jpg

If you have ever tried to get a kid out of one of these, you know how difficult it can
sometimes be. We were in a neighbor's yard and his kid was up in the fort section
of the swing set.

From the kitchen window we heard his wife call out "Lunch is ready!€�. I wrestled my kid
out of the swing and he retrieved his kid from the fort. We had barely made it into his
house when a huge limb from a tree next door came down on the swing set, crushing it.
It came down directly in line with the main beam, destroying the swing set and fort from
end to end.

All we heard was a loud crack and barely had time to turn around before the limb
was on the ground with the mangled swing set under it. There is absolutely no
way either of us would have had time to get our kids out in time to save them once
the "crack" was heard.

We said a lot of thank you prayers that day.

Cousin It-Still-Makes-Me-Shiver Monster


It's strange how things like that happen. If you're a religious person, you may believe a higher power like a guardian angel intervened. I've had odd feelings that caused me to make a different choice as to what move I would make as I travel through this world and it saved me. I think there is some kind of extra sensory perception because it's hit me and my brother a lot of times. We call each other and say something like,"Have you spoken to Sue today because I have an odd feeling. You too huh?" It turns out Sue was in an auto accident and hurt really bad the same time the hairs on the back of our necks stood up. Before CID on phones, I'd often pick up the phone,"Hello Jane. How did you know it was me? I was just thinking about you." Spooky. I'm glad your son survived into adulthood. I'm sure he grew up to be a fine young man with a wonderful dad like you. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Spooky Monster

This is the same son that almost died at birth. It was our first and no one
at the hospital believe that SWMBO was ready to give birth. They put us in
a birthing center "waiting room" (a room with a bed) while they waited for
a real birthing room to open up. They basically ignored my requests to
have someone look at her.

I stepped out into the hall and happened to see our mid-wife who wasn't even
supposed to be working that day. She was actually visiting someone. I asked
her to stop in and check on my wife who was insisting that she was ready. The mid-wife took one look, immediately called for a cart and the birthing began.

Halfway through the birthing process she screamed for my wife to stop
pushing. The cord was wrapped around my son's neck and he was not
breathing. She cut the cord, my wife pushed the kid out and the mid-wife
began administering mouth-to-mouth. It took a few breaths, but he eventually
starting breathing - and crying. They let my wife hold him for a few seconds
and then took him away for a complete check-up because of his ordeal. They
decided that he was OK and brought him back after an agonizing wait.

I have no doubt that he would have died if I hadn't have been in the hall
at the same time that our mid-wife just happened to walk by.

To add insult to injury, the mid-wife was not on call, so she didn't
get any documented credit for the birth. The doctor from the practice -
the only one from the practice that my wife did not like - was on duty
that morning, asleep in the doctor's lounge when all this happened. Since
he was the one that was on duty, it is his name that appears on the birth records. The incident and mid-wife's name is in my son's medical records,
but the birth itself "belongs" to the doctor who never even woke up.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 10:08:24 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 4:33:20 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 2:38:14 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

When my (luckily now an adult) son was a toddler, he was in one of these swings:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41i0xuq7wnL.jpg

If you have ever tried to get a kid out of one of these, you know how difficult it can
sometimes be. We were in a neighbor's yard and his kid was up in the fort section
of the swing set.

From the kitchen window we heard his wife call out "Lunch is ready!€�. I wrestled my kid
out of the swing and he retrieved his kid from the fort. We had barely made it into his
house when a huge limb from a tree next door came down on the swing set, crushing it.
It came down directly in line with the main beam, destroying the swing set and fort from
end to end.

All we heard was a loud crack and barely had time to turn around before the limb
was on the ground with the mangled swing set under it. There is absolutely no
way either of us would have had time to get our kids out in time to save them once
the "crack" was heard.

We said a lot of thank you prayers that day.

Cousin It-Still-Makes-Me-Shiver Monster


It's strange how things like that happen. If you're a religious person, you may believe a higher power like a guardian angel intervened. I've had odd feelings that caused me to make a different choice as to what move I would make as I travel through this world and it saved me. I think there is some kind of extra sensory perception because it's hit me and my brother a lot of times. We call each other and say something like,"Have you spoken to Sue today because I have an odd feeling. You too huh?" It turns out Sue was in an auto accident and hurt really bad the same time the hairs on the back of our necks stood up. Before CID on phones, I'd often pick up the phone,"Hello Jane. How did you know it was me? I was just thinking about you." Spooky. I'm glad your son survived into adulthood. I'm sure he grew up to be a fine young man with a wonderful dad like you. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Spooky Monster

This is the same son that almost died at birth. It was our first and no one
at the hospital believe that SWMBO was ready to give birth. They put us in
a birthing center "waiting room" (a room with a bed) while they waited for
a real birthing room to open up. They basically ignored my requests to
have someone look at her.

I stepped out into the hall and happened to see our mid-wife who wasn't even
supposed to be working that day. She was actually visiting someone. I asked
her to stop in and check on my wife who was insisting that she was ready. The mid-wife took one look, immediately called for a cart and the birthing began.

Halfway through the birthing process she screamed for my wife to stop
pushing. The cord was wrapped around my son's neck and he was not
breathing. She cut the cord, my wife pushed the kid out and the mid-wife
began administering mouth-to-mouth. It took a few breaths, but he eventually
starting breathing - and crying. They let my wife hold him for a few seconds
and then took him away for a complete check-up because of his ordeal. They
decided that he was OK and brought him back after an agonizing wait.

I have no doubt that he would have died if I hadn't have been in the hall
at the same time that our mid-wife just happened to walk by.

To add insult to injury, the mid-wife was not on call, so she didn't
get any documented credit for the birth. The doctor from the practice -
the only one from the practice that my wife did not like - was on duty
that morning, asleep in the doctor's lounge when all this happened. Since
he was the one that was on duty, it is his name that appears on the birth records. The incident and mid-wife's name is in my son's medical records,
but the birth itself "belongs" to the doctor who never even woke up.

I couldn't help but laugh, not in a mean way but it seems you son started out with a charmed life. Has he had any other close calls with death? Heck, everything has tried to kill me and I've managed to survive. What is your son studying in school or what career has he chosen? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Study Monster

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:14:05 PM UTC-4, Greetings From The
Future wrote:
replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really inaccurate
info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under common
law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if 1)
they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling; 2) and
if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling tree
would
result in the type of injury sustained.



That part is correct.



In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect their
land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very large
and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on A's
land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a theory
of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.


You can sue all you want, but it's unlikely you will win. In most
areas of the US, you have the right to trim the portion of the tree
that is overhanging your property. You neighbor is not required to
pay for it just because you don't like it, or some of it grows over
the property line. If the portion is
dead, decaying, clearly poses a danger to your property, or actually
interferes with your use of your property in some real way, then
you can win. Just because you think it's a "nuisance" doesn't
make it one under the law. A better example of a "nuisance" is where
the roots from the neighbor's tree are pushing up your sidewalk or
damaging your foundation. A large tree on a neighbor's property,
where some of it extends over the property line onto your large lot,
but isn't interfering with your use of the property, that I don't
think you're going to win, ie be able to force the neighbor to trim it.
If you could, you'd have all kinds of OCD neighbors forcing people
to spend all kinds of money trimming stuff.



You clearly do not know Pennsylvania law.

Jones v. Wagner, 624 A.2d 166 (1993),appeal denied, 536 Pa. 626 (1993).

"When tree branches overhang a property line, the aggrieved landowner is not
limited to seeking monetary relief for
any damage that may have occurred. When tree limbs grow over onto another
person's property, there is
a trespass. In fact, in the case of tree limbs, there is a continuing
trespass occurring by the mere fact of
the overhang and the possessor of land is entitled to pursue various
remedies, including self-help. With
regard to self-help, an aggrieved landowner is entitled to trim the branches
back to the property line, and
this is true even if the overhanging branches do not damage the property.
Also, if the landowner has
incurred reasonable expenses in the course of exercising a self-help remedy,
he may recoup those expenses
from the trespasser."

On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:42:48 -0400, "catalpa"
wrote:

Jones v. Wagner, 624 A.2d 166 (1993),appeal denied, 536 Pa. 626 (1993).

"When tree branches overhang a property line, the aggrieved landowner is not
limited to seeking monetary relief for
any damage that may have occurred. When tree limbs grow over onto another
person's property, there is
a trespass. In fact, in the case of tree limbs, there is a continuing
trespass occurring by the mere fact of
the overhang and the possessor of land is entitled to pursue various
remedies, including self-help. With
regard to self-help, an aggrieved landowner is entitled to trim the branches
back to the property line, and
this is true even if the overhanging branches do not damage the property.
Also, if the landowner has
incurred reasonable expenses in the course of exercising a self-help remedy,
he may recoup those expenses
from the trespasser."

Note: "back to the property line". If you reach across the line, trim
the tree and then it dies from your action, the game changes.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 1:42:48 PM UTC-4, catalpa wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:14:05 PM UTC-4, Greetings From The
Future wrote:
replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really inaccurate
info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under common
law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if 1)
they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling; 2) and
if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling tree
would
result in the type of injury sustained.



That part is correct.



In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect their
land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very large
and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on A's
land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a theory
of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.


You can sue all you want, but it's unlikely you will win. In most
areas of the US, you have the right to trim the portion of the tree
that is overhanging your property. You neighbor is not required to
pay for it just because you don't like it, or some of it grows over
the property line. If the portion is
dead, decaying, clearly poses a danger to your property, or actually
interferes with your use of your property in some real way, then
you can win. Just because you think it's a "nuisance" doesn't
make it one under the law. A better example of a "nuisance" is where
the roots from the neighbor's tree are pushing up your sidewalk or
damaging your foundation. A large tree on a neighbor's property,
where some of it extends over the property line onto your large lot,
but isn't interfering with your use of the property, that I don't
think you're going to win, ie be able to force the neighbor to trim it.
If you could, you'd have all kinds of OCD neighbors forcing people
to spend all kinds of money trimming stuff.



You clearly do not know Pennsylvania law.

Jones v. Wagner, 624 A.2d 166 (1993),appeal denied, 536 Pa. 626 (1993).

"When tree branches overhang a property line, the aggrieved landowner is not
limited to seeking monetary relief for
any damage that may have occurred. When tree limbs grow over onto another
person's property, there is
a trespass. In fact, in the case of tree limbs, there is a continuing
trespass occurring by the mere fact of
the overhang and the possessor of land is entitled to pursue various
remedies, including self-help. With
regard to self-help, an aggrieved landowner is entitled to trim the branches
back to the property line, and
this is true even if the overhanging branches do not damage the property.
Also, if the landowner has
incurred reasonable expenses in the course of exercising a self-help remedy,
he may recoup those expenses
from the trespasser."

To start with, I never claimed to know PA law, I said in most of the
US.

K, let's look at the PA case you cited Jones v. Wagner. It's not a case
about a homeowner cutting tree limbs from a neighbor's tree that
overhang his property and then suing to make the neighbor pay for the
cost. It's a case of a homeowner doing exactly what I said they could
do and that you agree they could do, which is cutting the branches back to
the property line and then the neighbor who owns the tree sued *them*
for damages. The alleged damages being the replacement cost of the
trees because the neighbor objected to those branches being trimmed.
And while the court cited what you say, they also clearly said:

"While there does exist some conflict regarding when a landowner may institute an action for injunctive or monetary relief *106 against an adjoining landowner whose trees overhang the property line, one common thread connects all of these cases: the landowner whose land is encroached by the overhanging branches may trim the limbs to the extent of the encroachment. As the District of Columbia Court of Appeals cogently stated in Sterling, supra: "[W]e think that the cases are in agreement that trees ordinarily aren't nuisances; that overhanging branches which merely cast shade or drop leaves on the land are not nuisances; that if under any circumstances overhanging branches or protruding roots do constitute a nuisance it is only when they do sensible or substantial harm; and that, whether nuisances or not, a landowner may always cut away to his property line branches and roots from trees of the adjoining owner." Id. at 147 (emphasis added)."

They cite the Columbia Court of appeals saying exactly what I posted,
that a neighbor's tree limbs, simply overhanging you property, is
not typically a nuisance under the law that would force your neighbor
to pay for the trimming. They say, like I said, that you may trim
them on your own up to your property line. Pay attention to this part:

"trees ordinarily aren't nuisances; that overhanging branches which merely cast shade or drop leaves on the land are not nuisances; that if under any circumstances overhanging branches or protruding roots do constitute a nuisance it is only when they do sensible or substantial harm; "

Which is exactly what I said in my post, that just because some branches
overhang onto your property, that doesn't mean they meet the legal
definition of a "nuisance". And for good reason. If the standard
which you claim was in effect, you'd have a lot of neighbors who don't
like each other forcing people to do silly trimming because branches
of natural trees simply overhang a bit into their mostly open yard.
If you really object to them, as always, you're free to do the trimming
yourself.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:08:24 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:


I couldn't help but laugh, not in a mean way but it seems you son started out with a charmed life. Has he had any other close calls with death? Heck, everything has tried to kill me and I've managed to survive. What is your son studying in school or what career has he chosen? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Study Monster

The only other close calls he's had was when he would **** me off as a teenager.

Charmed life? I'd say so. He finished high school and decided not to go to college. Now he's
living with the one of nicest, most intelligent girls I've ever met. He's working in the shipping
department of a company that makes furniture and other stuff for the casino industry while
she's getting her doctorate in some high-falutin' statistical analysis field on a full scholarship
to a prestigious university.

Cousin If-He-Messes-This-Up-His-Charmed-Life-Will-End-Via-My-Hands Monster

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 10:11:28 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 12:08:24 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:

I couldn't help but laugh, not in a mean way but it seems you son started out with a charmed life. Has he had any other close calls with death? Heck, everything has tried to kill me and I've managed to survive. What is your son studying in school or what career has he chosen? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Study Monster

The only other close calls he's had was when he would **** me off as a teenager.

Charmed life? I'd say so. He finished high school and decided not to go to college. Now he's
living with the one of nicest, most intelligent girls I've ever met. He's working in the shipping
department of a company that makes furniture and other stuff for the casino industry while
she's getting her doctorate in some high-falutin' statistical analysis field on a full scholarship
to a prestigious university.

Cousin If-He-Messes-This-Up-His-Charmed-Life-Will-End-Via-My-Hands Monster


I have no children that I know of but I've been adopted by a lot of them. It was the 4 year old son of a lady friend of mine who gave me the name Uncle Monster. Every time I dropped by for a visit, the 4 year old was all over me. We wrestled, played vampire, cartoon characters and Muppets. I was Cookie Monster but instead of cookies, I ate small children so I became Uncle Monster and the name stuck so even grownups who know me call me Uncle Monster. That 4 year old is now 34 and a grown man I can really embarrass.

One of the nurses had to come back to unlock a door and brought her youngest son, 4 years old, with her the other day. I rolled up and said, In my best Boris Badenov voice,"How much for the little boy? I buy him." He grabbed his mom's leg and she thought it was funny. Her son had been begging her to take him to work with her. When I see her again, I have to ask her if the little guy is still begging her to come to the center anymore. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Scary Monster

On 9/2/2016 7:15 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under
common law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if
1) they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling;
2) and if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling
tree would
result in the type of injury sustained.

In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect
their land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a
theory of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the
danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has assumed the
risk and
can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and
the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the nuisance and A
cannot
collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree he
can sue - and win.


Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

Always the best course to pursue. But some people will let you talk to
them about it, but will not anything about it. Especially if it costs
them money, but sometimes even if it doesn't.

I've got a lifelong neighbor like that. I had to kill one of her trees
before she'd remove it (on our property line, had caused damage to my
property twice, which she'd ignored), and I had to rent a bucket truck
to hack away at another one that's in her back yard, but grew to
overhang my garage, driveway, and house. She's got a line of invasive
shrubs and junk trees on the property line, too, and she refuses to
get rid of them for 'sentimental reasons'. So last weekend I borrowed
my nephew's brush hog while she was up at the cabin. She and her
daughter came home on Monday to dirt where the shrubs and junk trees
used to be.

On 9/8/2016 7:11 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 9/2/2016 7:15 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/2/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:14:01 +0000, Greetings From The Future
m wrote:

replying to avoidspam, Greetings From The Future wrote:
This thread is a zillion years old--but it contains really
inaccurate info.
The worst of which is given by the idiot "avoid spam" above.

There are very few states that codify landowner nuisance problems and
resulting tort liability because it has been covered so well under
common law.

In most states owners of trees are only liable for trees falling if
1) they
know or should have known that the tree was in danger of falling;
2) and if
the owner of said tree knows or should have known that the falling
tree would
result in the type of injury sustained.

In all cases, those with a possessory interest in land can protect
their land
(and in this case shed) through self help.

Examples: Lets call the owner of one piece of land "O" and the
owner of a
second piece of land "A".

O has a tree growing on her land, the top part of the tree is very
large and
has grown over onto A's land.

If A uses self help, A can remove the part of O's tree that is on
A's land.
Then A can sue O for the cost of the removal of the tree under a
theory of
nuisance and collect the cost of the tree removal.

If however A is aware of the danger and does not use self help to
remove the
danger of the tree falling on his own shed, then A has assumed the
risk and
can collect nothing.

If neither O nor A is aware of the danger of the tree falling on
the shed, and
the tree falls, then O is not liable to A for the nuisance and A
cannot
collect damages to his shed.
If you think the neighbor's tree is a danger to your property, send
a registered letter to your neighbor, his lawyer, and yourself. Don't
open yours. When the tree falls oof your neighbor knew or should have
known the tree was a danger - and he is responsible for all repairs.
If A removes part of O's tree and O decides A has damaged the tree he
can sue - and win.


Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

Always the best course to pursue. But some people will let you talk to
them about it, but will not anything about it. Especially if it costs
them money, but sometimes even if it doesn't.

I've got a lifelong neighbor like that. I had to kill one of her trees
before she'd remove it (on our property line, had caused damage to my
property twice, which she'd ignored), and I had to rent a bucket truck
to hack away at another one that's in her back yard, but grew to
overhang my garage, driveway, and house. She's got a line of invasive
shrubs and junk trees on the property line, too, and she refuses to get
rid of them for 'sentimental reasons'. So last weekend I borrowed my
nephew's brush hog while she was up at the cabin. She and her daughter
came home on Monday to dirt where the shrubs and junk trees used to be.



I have to wonder what her side of this story is. I bet she has a pet
name for you.

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:11:22 AM UTC-4, Moe DeLoughan wrote:


Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

Always the best course to pursue. But some people will let you talk to
them about it, but will not anything about it. Especially if it costs
them money, but sometimes even if it doesn't.

I've got a lifelong neighbor like that. I had to kill one of her trees
before she'd remove it (on our property line, had caused damage to my
property twice, which she'd ignored), and I had to rent a bucket truck
to hack away at another one that's in her back yard, but grew to
overhang my garage, driveway, and house. She's got a line of invasive
shrubs and junk trees on the property line, too, and she refuses to
get rid of them for 'sentimental reasons'. So last weekend I borrowed
my nephew's brush hog while she was up at the cabin. She and her
daughter came home on Monday to dirt where the shrubs and junk trees
used to be.

That should go a long way to leading to peace and tranquility in the
neighborhood. She's probably on her way to her lawyer or out to get
some dog poison.

Step one might be going and TALKING with the neighbor about it.

A friend of mine experienced the opposite. There was a flood, and her
(large) shed was moved into a neighbors yard, where it ended up standing
on it's edge against the neighbors tree. After the flood water resided,
I was one of several people asked to lower it from the tree, and move it
back to the correct yard, with a tractor. I knew my tractor was not big
enough for the job, but someone with a bulldozer did the job. The shed
did survive, but it's contents (including a riding mower, snowblower,
chainsaws, etc) were all ruined. The neighbors tree was not severely
damaged, but both yards needed some repair. Neither person had flood
insurance, but the guy with the dozer did the job for very little money,
and helped other people in the area too.