Who's liable for trimming trees that grow from one propery to another?

[justalayman]

Here's something for ya T:


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17971020021338173268&q=tree+branch+neighbor%27s+tree+damaged+by+trimming&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5

Thus, "[a]nything which is ... an obstruction to the free use of property ... is a nuisance." (§ 3479.) Remedies for a private nuisance are a civil action or abatement. (§ 3501.) "A person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or, if necessary, destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury." (§ 3502, italics added.)

If it requires damaging the tree to remove the nuisance, would it not be considered necessary to damage the tree?


along with that:

3479. Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not
limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent
or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of
property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life
or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the
customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream,
canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a
nuisance.

Other sections support the right of a person to take action to remove a nuisance.

 

[tranquility]

http://bayarearealestatelawyers.com/neighbor-issues/get-your-tree-out-of-my-yard-an-overview-of-neighbor%E2%80%99s-rights-relating-to-roots-and-branches/

Interesting. What was the search you used that got you there first?

Also note, it does not say what you claim. It does not say you can cut the branches at will. In the next to last paragraph it gives the warning the article is NOT showing the instances when self help is available. In fact, it mentions in most cases an attorney should be consulted before taking self help. It clearly does not tell that a neighbor can cut the tree without a warning of the problems.

what the heck are you talking about?

You've got to read down a bit lower. But, I think the statute for this situation would only cover if the neighbor intentionally did something like poison it or something.

Every person who within the State of California willfully or negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon state or county highway rights-of-way, or who removes leaf mold thereon, except that the provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply to any employee of the state or of any political subdivision thereof engaged in work upon any state, county, or public road or highway while performing work under the supervision of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, and every person who willfully or negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portions of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon public land or upon land not his or her own, or leaf mold on the surface of public land, or upon land not his or her own, without a written permit from the owner of the land signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, and every person who knowingly sells, offers, or exposes for sale, or transports for sale, any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or leaf mold, so cut or removed from state or county highway rights-of-way, or removed from public land or from land not owned by the person who cut or removed the same without the written permit from the owner of the land, signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment.

Not at all. I'm the guy that says: HELL yes he bites. He eats Girls Scouts for dinner so you best take your overpriced cookies the Hell out of here before he decides it's time for dinner.

On that we agree. If I don't know the girl, I'm not buying the cookies.

Info edit:
I agree with the nuisance issue. But, then we start getting into view nuisance and the like. It really doesn't add to the discussion as we agree the person can trim. (As long as he does not harm the tree.) Look to the key case on tree trimming too. (Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1786) It discusses nuisance:

Nuisance law supports this principle. Thus, "[a]nything which is ... an obstruction to the free use of property ... is a nuisance." (§ 3479.) Remedies for a private nuisance are a civil action or abatement. (§ 3501.) "A person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or, if necessary, destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury." (§ 3502, italics added.) Witkin notes: "A private nuisance may be abated by the party injured at his own risk; or he may bring a civil action for an injunction or damages or both." (11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1990) Equity, 140, pp. 822-823, italics added [original italics omitted].) Patel ignores the emphasized portions of the above statements, maintaining that Booska was the one who used his property unreasonably.

Finding the cutter was the one who used his property unreasonably.

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3160291]Interesting. What was the search you used that got you there first?

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+can+I+cut+a+tree+overhanging+my+property&aq=f&oq=california+&aqs=chrome.3.57j59l3j61l2.18487j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Also note, it does not say what you claim.

I didn't say it did because that was not what your challenge included. This is what you said:

tranquility
Please go on with the straw man, perhaps you can find a relevant example. That's because, as to the malpractice, the key is falling below the standard of the profession. Do a quick web search and find a lawyer page that tells that a neighbor can cut the tree in California and that does not also warn of the problem from damaging it. Go ahead, I'll wait**************

it meets your specifics.

You've got to read down a bit lower. But, I think the statute for this situation would only cover if the neighbor intentionally did something like poison it or something.

that law is obviously not referring to the situation at hand. It is accepted and supported by code and case law that in general, a person does have a right to cut an encroaching tree branch. That law specifically states you cannot cut any branch without written permission of the owner. I believe it refers to the portion of plant that is on the neighboring property and not an encroaching branch.

 

[tranquility]

Do a quick web search and find a lawyer page that tells that a neighbor can cut the tree in California and that does not also warn of the problem from damaging it.

Where did the page say the neighbor can cut the tree?

 

[justalayman]

Where did the page say the neighbor can cut the tree?

5th paragraph. It starts with "on the other end of the spectrum"