On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:59:13 -0400, "TheKeith" wrote:

That one lawyer is not the only one I've heard this from. Also, I found
this:
http://public.findlaw.com/real_estat...4F351504F.html
I should point out that it would be absolutely impossible for that neighbor
to trim the branches of the tree that are above his side of the property
without killing the tree, since as far as the branches go, there's as much
on his side as on our side.

btw, I'm not sure what you linked me to was an actual law, but it definately
over-simplifies what are much more complicated circumstances in my case. The
"law" is not fair at all if it allows them to kill a tree because it's
partially on their property.

Anyway, the legal proceedings have begun; I'll keep everyone posted.

(You must be seeing a lot of discussion of this matter, having posted
it to 5 newsgroups.)

I just checked the original post, which refers to a "monster" tree,
with not only branches but part of the trunk now impinging on
neighboring property. It's too bad that this couldn't have been worked
out amicably before tree damaga was done, or lawyers called in. You
might have paid for a diversion in their fence to accomodate the tree,
or agreed that the tree, however sentimental its ancestry, could be
done away with, and shared the removal cost. Much cheaper than
litigation, I expect. Now you have a damaged tree AND an adversarial
relationship with your neighbor. Whatever the legal outcome, and I'd
be on your neighbor's side at this point, you will have lost.