thanks for that explanation. I have pictures that convey pretty well that
what they cut was not done, at all, "skillfully." Also, they have absolutely
no justifiable cause to have touched the tree since the only reason the tree
was cut was to make way for a crappy vinyl fence, which could have more
easily been adapted to accomodate the tree rather than the converse. These
people have wanted to get rid of that tree since day-one, and have even made
comments about how they can't grow tomatoes and stuff because of it. When we
gave them a copy of the arborist's report, they disregarded it and held firm
in their intentions to further damage the tree--saying, "well if it has to
be removed then it has to be removed"--I'm paraphrasing, but they were
saying that the tree had to be removed not just cut for the fence. I think
it's pretty clear they're intent on getting rid of the tree altogether.


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article ,
(Chet Hayes) wrote:

Here's a link to a newspaper article that supports what I said
earlier, which is that usually a property owner can trim trees
overhanging into his yard. If the law were otherwise, the courts
would be full of cases where judges would have to decide which trees
could be trimmed and which ones couldn't. The law keeps things simple
and is fair. I think you'll find your lawyer doesn't know what he's
talking about, it sure wouldn't be the first time. But keep us
posted....


"http://www.startribune.com/stories/397/3871811.html


There are no doubt regional laws that get overly specific what can &
cannot be done to or about trees on neighbors' property or on public
property & roadsides. What is rarely true of the Law is "it keeps things
simple." If it were simple one wouldn't require attorneys, they'd just
tell their story to a judge & expect a fair outcome as in small claims
court. Unfair outcomes are a commonplace because issues have to conform to
the law, rather than the law conforming to fairness.

And there certainly ARE civil cases that have found damages against a
person who injured neighbors' trees without trespass. Any apples (as
example) hanging into the next yard can be harvested at will by that
neighbor, or the branch removed entirely if that neighbor decides it is in
the way, or roots might be removed if they are lifting walkways or
whatever. All that can be done, but the doer had better consider the
possibility of consequences. For if lasting damage does result from, say,
an amateurish pruning or removal of a root, OR if it can be found in a
court to have been conducted in malice, OR to have resulted in predictable
harm to the main body of a tree, there is every good chance of winning
damages.

There would first have to be good (justifiable) cause for the pruning or
removal of a root or main limb; it would then have to be done skillfully
so that injury to the main tree was not a predictable outcome (just
wacking at it cuz it's in your way would qualify as malice aforethought);
& there would have to have been no intent to do harm. All these factors
met, it would be difficult to find damages against someone who acted on
their own property without malice aforethought in a manner that a person
of average intelligence could never have thought could cause injury.

It is a matter of property rights vs property rights. You can do pretty
much anything you please on your own property UNTIL it impacts your
neighbor. Otherwise it would end up legal to spray herbicides all over the
portions of a tree that reached over onto your property, & when it killed
the whole tree, so what.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/