I agree with responses but there are a couple of possibilities not
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
Well, that just means that there is no consistency in how ins co's
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 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
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
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
Just trim the tree, or have it trimmed and pay the bill.
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...
re: "...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 Fri, 27 May 2011 02:39:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
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.
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
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
on Bob's part to obtain a response from Dan that the arborist/tree
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
onto the property of an abutter, causing a nuisance to that abutter
reasonable requests made by the effected abutter have gone unanswered
the only remedy the arborist/tree warden is issuing an order for the
to be removed -- if that order goes unanswered, the tree will likely
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
Yep, whether the law is on the side of the person who cut the limb or
On Sat, 28 May 2011 17:42:24 -0500, " firstname.lastname@example.org"
Wow. At first I assumed they were trimming city-owned trees as if they
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?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.