Excuse my posting to this group, but it pertains to trees!

A neighbor tells me that one of my live oaks has dead branches that are
overhanging his property and I need to get them trimmed. Do I
understand properly that this trimming is his responsibilty, and not
mine? With all due respect to him, I have no problems with someone
getting such branches cut off my tree, but I would rather not pay money
to protect his property (a backyard shed). He seems to feel that this
maintenance is definitely up to me. I've always understood the reverse
to be true.

I don't want to turn this into a legal case, and neighborliness is
another matter, but if there is Austin city code that applies, I'd very
much like to be aware of it.

Thanks

"Doug Lassiter" wrote in message
oups.com...
Excuse my posting to this group, but it pertains to trees!

A neighbor tells me that one of my live oaks has dead branches that are
overhanging his property and I need to get them trimmed. Do I
understand properly that this trimming is his responsibilty, and not
mine? With all due respect to him, I have no problems with someone
getting such branches cut off my tree, but I would rather not pay money
to protect his property (a backyard shed). He seems to feel that this
maintenance is definitely up to me. I've always understood the reverse
to be true.

I don't want to turn this into a legal case, and neighborliness is
another matter, but if there is Austin city code that applies, I'd very
much like to be aware of it.

Thanks


Here's a person who should be able to answer your question, or if he can't
he should be able to direct you to someone who can......

City of Austin Arborist Assisting with Development and Tree Preservation
Issues
Michael Embesi (512) 974-1876
505 Barton Springs Road, 4th Floor
Austin, TX 78704

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/trees/

On 30 Apr 2006 13:06:21 -0700, "Doug Lassiter"
wrote:

Excuse my posting to this group, but it pertains to trees!

A neighbor tells me that one of my live oaks has dead branches that are
overhanging his property and I need to get them trimmed. Do I
understand properly that this trimming is his responsibilty, and not
mine? With all due respect to him, I have no problems with someone
getting such branches cut off my tree, but I would rather not pay money
to protect his property (a backyard shed). He seems to feel that this
maintenance is definitely up to me. I've always understood the reverse
to be true.

I don't want to turn this into a legal case, and neighborliness is
another matter, but if there is Austin city code that applies, I'd very
much like to be aware of it.

Thanks
This comes right on the heels of a seminar called "Trees, People, and
the Law," put on by the Narional Arbor Day Foundation and held at the
wildflower center last week. It was my second time to attend, and
very little had changed from what I could tell.

With the exception of Austin's protected tree ordinance and
development ordinances, there is nothing in the City code about tree
maintenance. If the tree is larger than 19 inches diameter (measured
4.5 feet above grade), it is protected. Removing it, or damaging it
to the point that it will have to be removed, is illegal unless a
permit is obtained first. The development ordinances apply only to
large commercial developments and new platting.

That leaves the rest of our trees under common law, which dates back
to the Magna Carta. English magistrates determined that I have a
right to cut off branches that extend over my property, even if they
originate from your tree (determined by whose property the trunk
emerges from). Even a few inches of trunk overlapping the property
line make the tree shared by both owners. The branches or fruits that
are on your tree are yours, even if they extend over my line, but you
may not trespass to come get them. You must ask for them within a
reasonable time of their falling on my land. After that, they become
debris and I must remove them. All these fine points would be subject
to interpretation of judge or jury.

That's my long-winded way of saying you don't have to cut the limbs.
In fact, you must receive permission to trespass onto his land if you
choose to cut them. You are trespassing even if you cut them from the
tree (i.e., reaching across the line, even if your feet are on your
side, is still trespass). He may shear your tree off at the property
line (with the caveat regarding protected trees in Austin above) or
just cut out the offending limbs. If you ask for the branches, he
must return them to you, but otherwise they are his responsibility.

If your tree falls and damages his property, you are responsible only
if a reasonable person should have known the tree was hazardous. If
an arborist would have reasonably been expected to make such a
declaration, your responsibility is to know about the flaw and
mitigate it. If an arborist HAS seen the tree and declared it a
hazard, your chance of averting liability goes down drastically. If
the tree fails even though there are no obvious warning signs, it is
not your fault. In this case, it sounds like you may have reason to
believe the dead branches are a risk to his property. If you leave
them, and they damage his shed, you could be held liable.

These are all my opinions extrapolated from a seminar by a lawyer
about tree/law issues. I am not a lawyer and make no claims as to the
validity of these opinions in real-world situations.

My opinion as an arborist and a neighbor is, go ahead and deal with
this. It won't really cost all that much, you will be able to control
the quality of work done to your tree, and you will keep your neighbor
reasonably happy. It will be worth it in the long run.

Good luck.

Keith Babberney
ISA Certified Arborist #TX-0236AT

"Doug Lassiter" wrote in message
oups.com...
Excuse my posting to this group, but it pertains to trees!

A neighbor tells me that one of my live oaks has dead branches that are
overhanging his property and I need to get them trimmed. Do I
understand properly that this trimming is his responsibilty, and not
mine? With all due respect to him, I have no problems with someone
getting such branches cut off my tree, but I would rather not pay money
to protect his property (a backyard shed). He seems to feel that this
maintenance is definitely up to me. I've always understood the reverse
to be true.

I don't want to turn this into a legal case, and neighborliness is
another matter, but if there is Austin city code that applies, I'd very
much like to be aware of it.

Thanks

Doug,

There is no simple answer that you can print out, if that's what you are
looking for. Especially since you may be in the wrong.

The below Austin city site dances around the issue somewhat:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/trees/faq.htm#neighbor

If in fact the limbs *are* dead, the "common law" rule of thumb is that you
must remove them, or be liable for damage to your neighbor's shed were they
to fall. Conversely your neighbor might have a duty to mitigate his damages
by hiring a crew to trim the tree (and could send you the bill) rather than
allowing the branches to destroy his shed. If you did nothing and he sent
you a $400 pruning bill you'd have to pay it. If he did nothing and the
limbs took out a $2,500 garden shed, your liability might only extend to the
amount of the pruning bill unless he could prove negligence on your part.
There may be other factors involved - did he knowingly build a new garden
shed under a diseased tree?

If on the other hand the limbs are healthy, you have no duty to remove them.
Your neighbor could remove anything extending over his property line at his
option and expense as long as it did not damage the health of the tree.
This may be the circumstance you have in mind.

If you and your neighbor are in agreement that the limbs are dead, start
pruning. If on the other hand you believe the tree is healthy, or have
doubts about your neighbor's assessment, you may want to get a written
statement from an arborist which will either support your contention or
guide you in your course of action.
--
Mike Harris
Austin, TX

"Doug Lassiter" wrote in message
oups.com...
Excuse my posting to this group, but it pertains to trees!

A neighbor tells me that one of my live oaks has dead branches that are
overhanging his property and I need to get them trimmed. Do I
understand properly that this trimming is his responsibilty, and not
mine? With all due respect to him, I have no problems with someone
getting such branches cut off my tree, but I would rather not pay money
to protect his property (a backyard shed). He seems to feel that this
maintenance is definitely up to me. I've always understood the reverse
to be true.

I don't want to turn this into a legal case, and neighborliness is
another matter, but if there is Austin city code that applies, I'd very
much like to be aware of it.

Thanks


There is a possibility of liability if either party cuts the limbs. There
is no doubt the tree belongs to you, however. Neighborliness should always
come first, if that fails, seek legal advice.
--
Jonny

Thanks to everyone for the info. Although legalisticlly I guess it
doesn't make any difference, these are one or two inch branches (not a
big limb) hanging about fifteen to twenty feet overhead. So I guess it
comes down to whether one sees these as a risk. As I said, the issue
isn't access to my tree. More power to them if they come in with
ladder, ropes and a chain saw.

Jonny wrote:
"Doug Lassiter" wrote in message

A neighbor tells me that one of my live oaks has dead branches that are
overhanging his property and I need to get them trimmed...

I don't want to turn this into a legal case, and neighborliness is
another matter, but if there is Austin city code that applies, I'd very
much like to be aware of it.

Thanks



There is a possibility of liability if either party cuts the limbs. There
is no doubt the tree belongs to you, however. Neighborliness should always
come first, if that fails, seek legal advice.

My house has trees on the property line on both sides. Both
sides tell me they are my trees, because more of the trunk
is on my side than theirs. One guy the way we met was that
he knocked on my door, said a large limb had fallen on his
property and I had to pay him for cutting and hauling it away.

I paid him to avoid a neighbor battle. (He only wanted $50,
and he did work a whole afternoon sawing it.)

Next limb that fell on his property, I bought myself a chain
saw and cut it up myself.

Later another tree had a smallish limb overhanging his
property 20 feet up, dead. He moved his boat to park it
right under the dead limb. I figure he was hoping it would
fall so he could claim I owed him a new boat. I took a
picture. Yes there's a dead limb in the photo, but also
obvious he has lots of space to park the boat not under that
limb. (He's dead now, boat is gone.)

I'm no expert at property law, but there has to be some
responsibility for him avoid obvious damage when doing so is
not unduly restrictive.

On Mon, 08 May 2006 22:50:10 GMT, Weebie wrote:


My house has trees on the property line on both sides. Both
sides tell me they are my trees, because more of the trunk
is on my side than theirs. One guy the way we met was that
he knocked on my door, said a large limb had fallen on his
property and I had to pay him for cutting and hauling it away.

I paid him to avoid a neighbor battle. (He only wanted $50,
and he did work a whole afternoon sawing it.)

Next limb that fell on his property, I bought myself a chain
saw and cut it up myself.

Later another tree had a smallish limb overhanging his
property 20 feet up, dead. He moved his boat to park it
right under the dead limb. I figure he was hoping it would
fall so he could claim I owed him a new boat. I took a
picture. Yes there's a dead limb in the photo, but also
obvious he has lots of space to park the boat not under that
limb. (He's dead now, boat is gone.)

I'm no expert at property law, but there has to be some
responsibility for him avoid obvious damage when doing so is
not unduly restrictive.

My neighbor is such a dick he had his entire live oak which is at
lease 500 years old according to an arborist. The canopy of this tree
is 100 feet, a third of which hangs on my property.

When he had them cleaned up professionally he made them stop on the
line where the property ended, so I have a huge tree hanging there
with all that dead stuff . Some people.

Jangchub wrote:


My neighbor is such a dick he had his entire live oak which is at
lease 500 years old according to an arborist. The canopy of this tree
is 100 feet, a third of which hangs on my property.

When he had them cleaned up professionally he made them stop on the
line where the property ended, so I have a huge tree hanging there
with all that dead stuff . Some people.

Did you offer to pay for the third on your side? Tree
trimming is expensive!

A huge tree is touching my property line but the trunk is on
my side (just barely). Half of it shades my entire front
yard, half of it shades my neighbor's entire front yard.
I.e. we benefit equally from that tree, and we could argue
about whether it's "my tree" or "our tree."

I paid hundreds of dollars to trim my side so I don't get
dead branches falling on my lawn. If he wants to pay the
hundreds more to trim his side too, great, lets just have
the whole tree trimmed and split the cost. But why should I
pay the cost of trimming the part of the tree he alone
benefits from? He is the one in control of that side of the
tree, anyway: a trimmer would have to go on his property,
not mine, to do the work.

But maybe he doesn't value that tree or it's shade, in which
case he won't care what I do or don't do to it.

(This particular tree won't last another ten years anyway,
according to the tree man, which only reinforces the "why
would I spend hundreds of dollars of maintenance that
doesn't affect me?")

On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:43:40 GMT, Weebie wrote:


Did you offer to pay for the third on your side? Tree
trimming is expensive!

I never had the opportunity.

A huge tree is touching my property line but the trunk is on
my side (just barely). Half of it shades my entire front
yard, half of it shades my neighbor's entire front yard.
I.e. we benefit equally from that tree, and we could argue
about whether it's "my tree" or "our tree."

I am very fortunate to have several old growth live oaks which have
been tagged and registered in Williamson Cty. It's a ten thousand
dollar fine to cut them down.

I paid hundreds of dollars to trim my side so I don't get
dead branches falling on my lawn. If he wants to pay the
hundreds more to trim his side too, great, lets just have
the whole tree trimmed and split the cost. But why should I
pay the cost of trimming the part of the tree he alone
benefits from? He is the one in control of that side of the
tree, anyway: a trimmer would have to go on his property,
not mine, to do the work.

If the entire trunk is on your side of the property inside a fence it
is you who I believe should pay for it.

But maybe he doesn't value that tree or it's shade, in which
case he won't care what I do or don't do to it.

He cares. When we had our homes appraised by a realtor, the trees
alone on my property are worth over fifty thousands to the value of
the house, not counting the tree in his yard.

(This particular tree won't last another ten years anyway,
according to the tree man, which only reinforces the "why
would I spend hundreds of dollars of maintenance that
doesn't affect me?")

Why won't it last another ten years?