Your Tree Falls on a Neighbor's Shed

[JerryMouse]

All of them. The Common Law is controlling unless preempted by specific statute.

[JerryMouse]

These here (points at map) and those there (points at different spots).

I think the main difference is the number of tort lawyers per capita.

Also, how do we know the alleged "victim" didn't PULL the tree down?

[Trent©]

But not always, of course. So what point are you tryin' to make?

Since its not intellectual property, it can only be real...or personal.

I think yer tryin' to lump 'personal' and 'real' and 'fixture' into one package. They are each autonomous.

Anyway...that's not the issue.

My statement was/is that, if a large tree on my property that I own falls onto the neighbor's property, I still own the tree...and have a right to claim the wood.

The wood from some trees can be worth thousands of dollars.

Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.

[Trent©]

He'd need a pull permit!

And...when you say 'pull', why do they shoot that damn clay pigeon AWAY from you?! lol

Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde? A golden retriever.

[Art]

Might well be true in your state. Might well be false in another state.

[avoidspam]

Not true! To be applicable common law must be validated by statutory law in all states (with the exception of Louisiana, where common law is not the basis for their statutory law!)

[Dave]

I appreciate all the helpful advice. We borrowed a tractor and removed the tree. I will call my agent Monday (6 days after the event) and get his opinion. The problem is that I don't know how the expenses might snowball at this point. I'm willing to repair the roof but if the neighbor insists on a new roof I'm not sure I will want to comply. The roof is tin and old and patched. There is also a question of water damage -- which relates to whether the roof was leaking before the tree fell. The base of the tree was dead on 1/3 of its diameter but it was not located where this would be easily noticed. That part of the lot is essentially idle land. Thanks to all. Dave

[SteveB]

"Dave" wrote. I'm willing to repair the roof but if the

You have reached the crux of the matter. How to be reasonable without being a bulldozer or a doormat. Most disputes among friendly neighbors are handled with "whatever's fair" attitude. And then it goes from there.

You will have this neighbor for a while. It may be economical to pay a little more now and buy peace for the long term. This doesn't mean that you will keep him on your Christmas card list, or grab his garbage cans when you see them going down the street in a gale, or, for that matter, ever show him another neighborly kindness. Or even call 911 when you see smoke at his house or see suspicious activity while he's at a hockey game in town.

Only good friendly neighbors do those things. Lead off with the "Let's be good neighbors and share this thing" speech, and then adjust from there depending on his attitude.

Steve

[TURTLE]

This is Turtle.

I would do nothing unless ask by the neighbor as to being a problem. The less you know the better off you are and if the damage was a big lost. you would hope the neighbor would call his insurance agent and have it fixed. What your thinking is the neighbor might sue you for the damages maybe. Don't worry about it if you have insurance on your house for there is coverage for messing up other peoples property built into your policy. All he can get from your insurance company is the deductiable he paid for before his insurance company started paying. But if he does sue you , you stay out of it and let the insurance companys fight over it. They are good at fighting over payments for damage.

TURTLE

[Greetings From The Future]

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.

[clare]

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.

[Taxed and Spent]

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

[Terry Coombs]

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 .

[clare]

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.

[Taxed and Spent]

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.

[trader_4]

That part is correct.

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.

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.

[Paintedcow]

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!

[Micky]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[catalpa]

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."

[trader_4]

To start with, I never claimed to know PA law, I said "While there does exist some conflict regarding when a landowner may instit ute an action for injunctive or monetary relief *106 against an adjoining l andowner whose trees overhang the property line, one common thread connects all of these cases: the landowner whose land is encroached by the overhang ing branches may trim the limbs to the extent of the encroachment. As the D istrict of Columbia Court of Appeals cogently stated in Sterling, supra: "[ W]e think that the cases are in agreement that trees ordinarily aren't nuis ances; that overhanging branches which merely cast shade or drop leaves on the land are not nuisances; that if under any circumstances overhanging bra nches or protruding roots do constitute a nuisance it is only when they do sensible or substantial harm; and that, whether nuisances or not, a landown er may always cut away to his property line branches and roots from trees o f 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 nuis ance 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.