It is definitely regular to hear about tree trimming cases where a landowner wants to cut the branches of a the next door neighbors tree that overhang the common boundary line-which is actually authorized, to a point-or actually those cases when an individual trespasses to the property of another in order to cut or perhaps decrease trees and shrubs completely situated upon that lot-which is actually illegitimate. Regardless of the underlying reason regarding these kinds of cutting down on as well as chopping, Massachusetts legislation is reasonably distinct about whether responsibility as well as damages may take place within those scenarios informs Jeffery T. Angley.
But have you considered any time a tree equally straddles two lots? Not just the branches, but the principal trunk by itself? Who is the owner of the actual sapling, as well as, most importantly, can all or a portion of it be legally taken off? These criteria grow to be critical each time a landowner wishes to make improvements on or within the boundary line which require removal of the tree.
Interestingly enough, Massachusetts case law is essentially unclear about just what rights are available whenever a tree trunk grows across a boundary line. In one case, Levine v. Black, 312 Mass. 242 (1942), the court had the capacity to address the problem, however eventually punted. At best, the Levine court noted that amongst other areas the particular tree was regarded as being owned as tenants in common relating to the two nearby components, or even that every landowner owned the actual portion of the tree on his respected lot, but didn't specifically determine which legal rights apply in Massachusetts.
Quoting Levine, a reasonably current tree chopping decision (under Rule 1:28) issued by the Appeals Court ordered that complete value damages be paid for cutting a tree that straddled the boundary line. The decision failed to state the type of property rights that supports the actual awarded damages, and just vaguely referred towards the existence of legal rights inside the tree that protect against another's unilateral actions which causes harm to or even destroys the actual tree. See Lasell College v. Fox, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (Nov. 2, 2001) ("Each of the parties held a legal interest in that part of the tree on his own property but also had the right to prevent the other party from dealing with part of the tree so as to injure or destroy the whole tree.").
Within some other areas, the courts have more or less supported the concept a tree increasing on two lots is actually held as renters in common or collectively, and that this kind of trees and shrubs can not be destroyed with out permission, nor may they be clipped to be able to cause material damage. See, e.g., Garcia v. Sanchez, 108 N.M. 388 (1989) (citing Annotation, Rights and Liabilities of Adjoining Landowners As to Trees, Shrubbery, or Similar Plants Growing on Boundary Line, 26 A.L.R.3d 1372, 1374-1375 (1969)); Young v. Ledford, 37 So.3d 832 (Ala.Civ.App. 2009), writ of mandamus denied Young v. Ledford, 79 So.3d 656 (Ala. Civ. App., 2011), (reversing lower court order that authorized removal of entire boundary line tree because, under Alabama law, "[i]n the special case of a boundary-line tree, ... each adjacent landowner has ownership rights that can't be trumped by the other's desires in the manner suggested by the trial court's judgment") informs an insider from Jeffery T. Angley.
So what's a landowner to try and do? At minimum, every time a tree can be found to be developing about two lots, the sensible landowner ought to seek out the consent of his neighbor when it is required to eliminate or substantially reduce the tree. According to the situations prompting the particular tree removal, agreement might be given if the neighbor is reasonable. However, in those situations where the neighbor is unwilling to get the tree cut down, feasible choices include revising plans so that it does not require any kind of tree removing or substantial trimming to the point of harm or even bringing a declaratory judgment action in court to have the court determine the parties' respective rights.
To understand more details on the Jeffrey T Angley P. C and real estate law, visit - Jeffrey T Angley at - http://www.jeffreytangleypc.com/
Article Source - http://www.jeffreytangleypc.com/blog/2012/08/trees-boundary-lines-important-considerations.shtml
|
RSS Feed