Neighbor's dead tree is leaning against my oak and threatening to fall on my property

[Ron]

Don't know where you live, but it doesn't work like that where I live.

Whatever part of the tree is on your side of the property is your responsibility, period.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Don't know where you live, but it doesn't work like that where I live.

Whatever part of the tree is on your side of the property is your responsibility, period. ===========

Bad law you have there. That enables a neighbor to ignore an obvious problem until it becomes someone else's. Then they can ignore it some more.

Whenever you notice a bad law or a bad project about to be financed with public money, you can be 100% sure that it was due to either stupidity, or a politician benefitted financially from the law or project. Always. There are no exceptions.

[aemeijers]

In this case, about 800 years of Common Law, from jolly old england, passed down to our founding fathers. Closely related to the one about fruit that hangs on a limb that goes over the property line. No half-vast conspiricy involved, just tradition.

-- aem sends...

[HeyBub]

Where's "around here?" Zimbabwe?

If anybody (neighbor, stranger, martian), through action, inaction, or negligence causes damage to your property, he is liable. "It was okay when it left my place" is not a viable defense.

Suppose your neighbor CUT his tree down and it fell on your house, killing your children and cat. "It's on your property, deal with it" would not be an acceptable response to your polite complaint.

There is no legal difference between negligently chopping down a tree and allowing a dead one to fall on its own.

I agree that a lawyer would be inappropriate at the beginning. Should a resolution not be forthcoming at stage one, a lawyer would, however, be necessary to recover the loss of heirlooms, medical expenses incurred in trying to lift the tree, pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, punative damages, and the interests of the unidentified heirs.

[HeyBub]

That's not an "opinion," that's a FACT.

[HeyBub]

You raise a good point - if the neighbor was unaware of the problem, it's hard to prove liability.

It should be easy, however, to prove the neighbor SHOULD have known. It's his responsibility to monitor his property for hazards, especially something as large as a tree.

If the neighbor can't monitor his property - say he's trying to convert little brown babies in Africa to the one true church - he still has an obligation to employ an agent to look after things.

[Van Chocstraw]

That oak tree is your property and you have a right to have them remove their tree from against your property. Thats no different than them parking in your driveway.

[gwandsh]

Hmm, armed rebellion is an Act of God? Interesting,,,

[The Ranger]

gwandsh wondered aloud through message news: [e-mail] after "HeyBub" quipped: [snip]

Sure they are! Don't rebels^Wdisatisfied-but-armed-citizens normally believe Gahd is on THEIR side?

The Ranger

[aemeijers]

EVERYBODY believes God is on their side. At least half of them are wrong. Often both sides are.

-- aem sends...

[Stormin Mormon]

And, that's how we get wars. Both sides rush into battle, with God's divine protection.

I wonder if God is up there, playing chess with all us idiots. All us nations of pawns, and God keeps pushing us into battle, jumping checkers and caputring players and killing each other off.

[aemeijers]

So is God playing with himself?

[salty]

Not everybody believes there is a god.

Then, there are the pastafarians!

[Thomas]

Big chain, bigger winch. Put it back where it came from.

Thomas.

[HeyBub]

That's like the guy with two black eyes.

He got the first when he untucked a woman's dress from her pantyhose as he stood behind her in line.

[nielloeb]

Strictly, legally speaking, it's completely your problem since you knew it was dead and didn't tell your neighbor of your fears. You now can tell the neighbor you are having a crew enter their property for the purpose of fixing the safety hazard (i.e. cutting the tree so it no longer poses the hazard) and that they will fix any damage to the property caused by their work.

To be neighborly, you should have the crew remove the entire tree and not just enough to make it safe.

Had you done something upon discovery of the dead tree, the neighborly thing to do would have to have offered to pay half the cost to remove the hazard, and, if refused, to have paid the total cost.

[Phisherman]

This can be a complex issue. Keep your children out of the yard during storms or a windy day. Keep and date a few pictures of the tree and let the neighbor know it is a hazard. Wait for his reaction, perhaps a week or two, then contact a city official who knows about these situations. You should NOT have to pay to remove a neighbor's tree.

[Doug Brown]

I agree with almost everything Phisherman said, but why do you think a city official would want or need to insert themselves into what seems to be a dispute as between two neighbours?

[norminn]

clipped

It didn't sound like it was yet a "dispute". A "dangerous tree" is a code violation in my city and the city can remove the hazard if the owner does not. Funny how folks can post a question about a significant matter and then "disappear" and don't answer follow-up questions. It is conceivable that the tree is now situated such that the OP would be responsible for removal, and not the owner of the property from whence the tree came....we may never know. It would be interesting to hear how it is resolved.

[HeyBub]

Because that's what city officials DO.

Normally they LOOK for things busy themselves with; someone coming to them with a problem is a bonus.