-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Yet another tree related question...sorry
- Thread starter Chester Drawers
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
oh by the way,,,like i said has nothing to do with nature,,,maybe i will search new york later
Mattos v. Mattos , 162 Cal.App.2d 41
[Civ. No. 17952. First Dist., Div. Two. July 9, 1958.]
J. C. MATTOS, Respondent, v. MANUEL R. MATTOS, Appellant.
COUNSEL
Lounibos & Lounibos for Appellant.
Freitas, Allen, McCarthy & Bettini for Respondent.
OPINION
DRAPER, J.
Defendant appeals from judgment directing abatement of a nuisance. A large number of eucalyptus trees stood on defendant's land along its boundary with the lands of plaintiff. In 1951 some of these trees were blown down, so that they lay across the boundary line. While the testimony is not detailed, photographs in evidence show that the roots of these trees remain upon the lands of defendant, with portions of them still embedded in the soil. After trial without jury, the court ordered defendant to remove the trees from plaintiff's land. Defendant appeals.
[1] Appellant first argues that the judgment is erroneous because there is no showing that any act or conduct of his caused the damage. It is true that there is neither showing nor finding of any negligent or wrongful act or omission of defendant proximately causing the falling of the trees. But no such showing is required. [2] If the trees remained upright, with some of their branches extending over or upon plaintiff's land, they clearly would constitute a nuisance, which defendant could be required to abate. (Bonde v. Bishop, 112 Cal.App.2d 1 [245 P.2d 617]; see also Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161 [11 P. 623]; Parsons v. Luhr, 205 Cal. 193 [270 P. 443].) We are unable to distinguish the situation before [162 Cal.App.2d 43] us, where portions of the trunks as well as branches lie upon and over plaintiff's land. [3] The evidence is clear that these portions of defendant's trees cover a substantial area of plaintiff's land, and appreciably restrict its use for the grazing purposes to which it is normally devoted. Thus they constitute a nuisance (Civ. Code, § 3479) and justify plaintiff's action for abatement thereof (Code Civ. Proc., § 731).
[4] Defendant contends that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. 2.) For purposes of application of the statute to actions for damages from or for the abatement of a nuisance, a distinction is drawn between those intrusions upon another's land which are "permanent" and those which are "continuing." (Tracy v. Ferrera, 144 Cal.App.2d 827 [301 P.2d 905].) Construction of a building partly upon the land of another is a permanent encroachment thereon and the entire cause of action for past as well as prospective damages accrues when the trespass occurs. (Bertram v. Orlando, 102 Cal.App.2d 506 [227 P.2d 894, 27 A.L.R.2d 899].) But, "if the nuisance may be discontinued at any time" (Phillips v. City of Pasadena, 27 Cal.2d 104 , 107 [162 P.2d 625]) or when the encroachment "is abatable" (Kafka v. Bozio, 191 Cal. 746, 751 [218 P. 753, 29 A.L.R. 833]), the nuisance is continuing and each repetition or continuance amounts to another wrong giving rise to a new cause of action. [5] Roots and branches of trees have been held to fall in the "continuing" classification. (Stevens v. Moon, 54 Cal.App. 737, 743 [202 P. 961].) This action is not barred.
[6] Defendant finally contends that the falling of the trees was due to a windstorm of such intensity as to amount to an "act of God," and thus free him of responsibility. As already pointed out, this action is not based upon a claim of negligence, but upon the absolute liability of an owner to remove portions of his trees which extend over and upon another's land so as to constitute a nuisance. In any event, defendant's contention raised only a question of fact. The evidence, which indicates that at most this storm was of somewhat more than average intensity, warrants the implied finding that the falling of the trees was not within the category of an act of God. (Conlin v. Coyne, 19 Cal.App.2d 78 , 86-87 [64 P.2d 1123].)
Judgment affirmed.
Kaufman, P. J., and Dooling, J., concurred.
I rest,,,eyes rolled
Bill
Mattos v. Mattos , 162 Cal.App.2d 41
[Civ. No. 17952. First Dist., Div. Two. July 9, 1958.]
J. C. MATTOS, Respondent, v. MANUEL R. MATTOS, Appellant.
COUNSEL
Lounibos & Lounibos for Appellant.
Freitas, Allen, McCarthy & Bettini for Respondent.
OPINION
DRAPER, J.
Defendant appeals from judgment directing abatement of a nuisance. A large number of eucalyptus trees stood on defendant's land along its boundary with the lands of plaintiff. In 1951 some of these trees were blown down, so that they lay across the boundary line. While the testimony is not detailed, photographs in evidence show that the roots of these trees remain upon the lands of defendant, with portions of them still embedded in the soil. After trial without jury, the court ordered defendant to remove the trees from plaintiff's land. Defendant appeals.
[1] Appellant first argues that the judgment is erroneous because there is no showing that any act or conduct of his caused the damage. It is true that there is neither showing nor finding of any negligent or wrongful act or omission of defendant proximately causing the falling of the trees. But no such showing is required. [2] If the trees remained upright, with some of their branches extending over or upon plaintiff's land, they clearly would constitute a nuisance, which defendant could be required to abate. (Bonde v. Bishop, 112 Cal.App.2d 1 [245 P.2d 617]; see also Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161 [11 P. 623]; Parsons v. Luhr, 205 Cal. 193 [270 P. 443].) We are unable to distinguish the situation before [162 Cal.App.2d 43] us, where portions of the trunks as well as branches lie upon and over plaintiff's land. [3] The evidence is clear that these portions of defendant's trees cover a substantial area of plaintiff's land, and appreciably restrict its use for the grazing purposes to which it is normally devoted. Thus they constitute a nuisance (Civ. Code, § 3479) and justify plaintiff's action for abatement thereof (Code Civ. Proc., § 731).
[4] Defendant contends that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. 2.) For purposes of application of the statute to actions for damages from or for the abatement of a nuisance, a distinction is drawn between those intrusions upon another's land which are "permanent" and those which are "continuing." (Tracy v. Ferrera, 144 Cal.App.2d 827 [301 P.2d 905].) Construction of a building partly upon the land of another is a permanent encroachment thereon and the entire cause of action for past as well as prospective damages accrues when the trespass occurs. (Bertram v. Orlando, 102 Cal.App.2d 506 [227 P.2d 894, 27 A.L.R.2d 899].) But, "if the nuisance may be discontinued at any time" (Phillips v. City of Pasadena, 27 Cal.2d 104 , 107 [162 P.2d 625]) or when the encroachment "is abatable" (Kafka v. Bozio, 191 Cal. 746, 751 [218 P. 753, 29 A.L.R. 833]), the nuisance is continuing and each repetition or continuance amounts to another wrong giving rise to a new cause of action. [5] Roots and branches of trees have been held to fall in the "continuing" classification. (Stevens v. Moon, 54 Cal.App. 737, 743 [202 P. 961].) This action is not barred.
[6] Defendant finally contends that the falling of the trees was due to a windstorm of such intensity as to amount to an "act of God," and thus free him of responsibility. As already pointed out, this action is not based upon a claim of negligence, but upon the absolute liability of an owner to remove portions of his trees which extend over and upon another's land so as to constitute a nuisance. In any event, defendant's contention raised only a question of fact. The evidence, which indicates that at most this storm was of somewhat more than average intensity, warrants the implied finding that the falling of the trees was not within the category of an act of God. (Conlin v. Coyne, 19 Cal.App.2d 78 , 86-87 [64 P.2d 1123].)
Judgment affirmed.
Kaufman, P. J., and Dooling, J., concurred.
I rest,,,eyes rolled
Bill
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
Are you a practicing village idiot or do you come by it naturally.What has this to do with the poster's situation at all?
oh my the courts are littered with these cases,,,,,who was it that said i sounded stupid ?,,,mmm
Bonde v. Bishop , 112 Cal.App.2d 1
[Civ. No. 15163. First Dist., Div. One. June 25, 1952.]
G. T. BONDE et al., Respondents, v. WILBUR A. BISHOP et al., Appellants.
COUNSEL
Aaronson & Cohn, Michael Aaronson and Melvin E. Cohn for Appellants.
Marvin J. Colangelo for Respondents.
OPINION
BRAY, J.
Action for declaratory relief and to declare defendants' tree which overhangs plaintiffs' premises a nuisance. Defendants appeal from a judgment ordering defendants to abate the nuisance and awarding $200 damages.
Questions Presented
1. The law concerning encroaching trees.
2. Sufficiency of the evidence to prove (a) a nuisance and (b) damages.
2. Evidence
(a) Nuisance
[1] There is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the branches of the tree overhanging plaintiffs' property constitute a nuisance and an ever present danger to plaintiffs' premises. On defendants' property, approximately 20 feet from the line between the properties of the parties, there is a white oak tree 50 or 60 feet tall, the trunk [112 Cal.App.2d 3] of which is approximately 4 feet in circumference. Three of its main limbs extend approximately 25 feet over and about 40 feet above plaintiffs' property, one over the driveway area, one over the den area and one over the patio area. In the main part of the tree about 14 feet above the base is a large hole. About 5 o'clock on the morning of September 2, 1950, a large limb broke loose from the tree, smashed through plaintiffs' garage and smashed a section of the fence. Defendant Bishop when asked what he was going to do about the damage stated that it was not his responsibility. This damage was paid for by insurance held by plaintiffs. There is a continual dropping of smaller branches on the roof, driveway and patio. One small branch almost hit plaintiff while he was standing in the middle of his driveway. It is almost a daily chore to clean the debris from the tree. The noise of the dropping of the smaller branches on the roof constantly reminds plaintiffs of the danger. During the rainy season it is a two-hour job every Sunday to clear the gutters and the drain spouts of the debris from the tree. Plaintiffs are afraid of the overhanging limbs and because of them are afraid to leave their baby out in the patio. The debris requires plaintiffs to sweep the patio and driveway daily and rake the lawn before mowing it. Finally, plaintiff put screens on the gutters so he would not be required to clean them. When defendant Bishop was told by Mrs. Bonde that plaintiffs desired the tree cut back to their line, he not only refused but warned her that if plaintiffs had it cut back and damaged the tree in any way, defendants would sue plaintiffs. After the limb fell defendants had the foliage thinned out, removing two loads of brush and a considerable quantity of wood.
Defendants rely mainly on the testimony of their only witness, a tree expert, who gave it as his opinion that for safety it is not necessary to cut down the tree. (The court did not order the tree cut down, merely ordered the nuisance to be abated. This requires only the removal of the overhanging limbs.) The parties and the court concluded from the witness' testimony that he also meant that the overhanging limbs were safe, although he did not say so. He did testify that he had thinned the tree to lighten it for safety, and that the tree "would continue to stand until such time as the tree would leaf out and again get heavy." On cross-examination when asked if he was willing to state that the overhanging branches would not fall at any time, he answered in the negative, saying [112 Cal.App.2d 4] that a tree is not static and conditions do change and are constantly changing. He also testified that the hole probably extends down the tree. He assumed that there was decay there which might lessen the strength of the tree.
The above testimony is amply sufficient to demonstrate that the overhanging branches are a nuisance. Apparently this is one of those rows between neighbors in which the defendants are standing on what they erroneously believe to be their strict legal rights to the exclusion of any consideration of the fair, decent, neighborly and legal thing to do.
The fact that an overhanging branch did fall, the age of the oak tree, the evidence of some decay, indicates that there is danger of the overhanging limbs falling. But assuming as claimed by defendants that the tree is safe in that respect, there is still ample evidence that its limbs constitute a nuisance as to plaintiffs. The constant dropping of small branches on the roof and in the yard, the inability to leave their baby in the patio because of that fact, the constant work required to keep their premises clean, alone establish the nuisance.
In its findings the court found that the overhanging limbs were of no value or use to plaintiffs. Defendants contend that there is no evidence to support this. There is no evidence that the overhanging limbs were of value or use to plaintiffs. The finding is supported.
1. Encroaching Trees
[4] The weight of authority is that to the extent that limbs or roots extend upon an adjoining landowner's property the latter may remove them, but only to the boundary line. (1 Am.Jur. p. 537.) California follows this rule. (Grandona v. [112 Cal.App.2d 6] Lovdal, 78 Cal. 611 [21 P. 366, 12 Am.St.Rep. 121]; Stevens v. Moon, 54 Cal.App. 737 [202 P. 961].)
[5, 6] As to damages, according to 1 American Jurisprudence page 538, the general rule is as follows: "The owner of a tree the branches of which overhang the premises of an adjoining landowner is liable for damages caused by the overhanging branches. And this is so without regard to the extent of the damage resulting therefrom, the insignificance of the injury going to the extent of the recovery, and not to the right of action. ... But it has been held that no landowner has a cause of action from the mere fact that the branches of an innoxious tree, belonging to an adjoining landowner, overhang his premises, his right to cut off the overhanging branches being considered a sufficient remedy." The last statement apparently is the California rule, for no damages were given in the Grandona case. Other cases in California which have given damages have more than mere encroachment; there was damage to crops, etc.
[7] While it is the absolute right of a landowner to remove those portions of trees which encroach on his land whether they cause damage or not, it is rather anomalous that to obtain court help in the matter he must first prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance. In other words, the landowner, merely because he does not desire a neighbor's tree to overhang his premises, can, in a sense, take the law in his own hands and cut off the encroachment, but to act in what is probably a more orderly manner and apply to the court for an injunction restraining the tree owner from allowing the tree to so encroach, he apparently has to prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance. At least, the authorities on this question are not as clear cut as on the other. 1 American Jurisprudence page 538 points out that a few decisions have recognized the right of a landowner to compel the owner of the encroaching tree to remove the encroachment merely because the landowner wants it removed, but that most of the decisions hold that the landowner's relief in this respect can be obtained only under the nuisance statutes and hence a nuisance must be proved. This probably is the rule in California. Most of the cases dealing with the subject have been nuisance cases. The portion of the judgment awarding plaintiffs damages in the sum of $200 is reversed. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. Plaintiffs are awarded costs.
Peters, P. J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.
I had to shorten this case to fit,,here is the link
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/112/1.html&search=trees+injunction+nuisance
Bonde v. Bishop , 112 Cal.App.2d 1
[Civ. No. 15163. First Dist., Div. One. June 25, 1952.]
G. T. BONDE et al., Respondents, v. WILBUR A. BISHOP et al., Appellants.
COUNSEL
Aaronson & Cohn, Michael Aaronson and Melvin E. Cohn for Appellants.
Marvin J. Colangelo for Respondents.
OPINION
BRAY, J.
Action for declaratory relief and to declare defendants' tree which overhangs plaintiffs' premises a nuisance. Defendants appeal from a judgment ordering defendants to abate the nuisance and awarding $200 damages.
Questions Presented
1. The law concerning encroaching trees.
2. Sufficiency of the evidence to prove (a) a nuisance and (b) damages.
2. Evidence
(a) Nuisance
[1] There is substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the branches of the tree overhanging plaintiffs' property constitute a nuisance and an ever present danger to plaintiffs' premises. On defendants' property, approximately 20 feet from the line between the properties of the parties, there is a white oak tree 50 or 60 feet tall, the trunk [112 Cal.App.2d 3] of which is approximately 4 feet in circumference. Three of its main limbs extend approximately 25 feet over and about 40 feet above plaintiffs' property, one over the driveway area, one over the den area and one over the patio area. In the main part of the tree about 14 feet above the base is a large hole. About 5 o'clock on the morning of September 2, 1950, a large limb broke loose from the tree, smashed through plaintiffs' garage and smashed a section of the fence. Defendant Bishop when asked what he was going to do about the damage stated that it was not his responsibility. This damage was paid for by insurance held by plaintiffs. There is a continual dropping of smaller branches on the roof, driveway and patio. One small branch almost hit plaintiff while he was standing in the middle of his driveway. It is almost a daily chore to clean the debris from the tree. The noise of the dropping of the smaller branches on the roof constantly reminds plaintiffs of the danger. During the rainy season it is a two-hour job every Sunday to clear the gutters and the drain spouts of the debris from the tree. Plaintiffs are afraid of the overhanging limbs and because of them are afraid to leave their baby out in the patio. The debris requires plaintiffs to sweep the patio and driveway daily and rake the lawn before mowing it. Finally, plaintiff put screens on the gutters so he would not be required to clean them. When defendant Bishop was told by Mrs. Bonde that plaintiffs desired the tree cut back to their line, he not only refused but warned her that if plaintiffs had it cut back and damaged the tree in any way, defendants would sue plaintiffs. After the limb fell defendants had the foliage thinned out, removing two loads of brush and a considerable quantity of wood.
Defendants rely mainly on the testimony of their only witness, a tree expert, who gave it as his opinion that for safety it is not necessary to cut down the tree. (The court did not order the tree cut down, merely ordered the nuisance to be abated. This requires only the removal of the overhanging limbs.) The parties and the court concluded from the witness' testimony that he also meant that the overhanging limbs were safe, although he did not say so. He did testify that he had thinned the tree to lighten it for safety, and that the tree "would continue to stand until such time as the tree would leaf out and again get heavy." On cross-examination when asked if he was willing to state that the overhanging branches would not fall at any time, he answered in the negative, saying [112 Cal.App.2d 4] that a tree is not static and conditions do change and are constantly changing. He also testified that the hole probably extends down the tree. He assumed that there was decay there which might lessen the strength of the tree.
The above testimony is amply sufficient to demonstrate that the overhanging branches are a nuisance. Apparently this is one of those rows between neighbors in which the defendants are standing on what they erroneously believe to be their strict legal rights to the exclusion of any consideration of the fair, decent, neighborly and legal thing to do.
The fact that an overhanging branch did fall, the age of the oak tree, the evidence of some decay, indicates that there is danger of the overhanging limbs falling. But assuming as claimed by defendants that the tree is safe in that respect, there is still ample evidence that its limbs constitute a nuisance as to plaintiffs. The constant dropping of small branches on the roof and in the yard, the inability to leave their baby in the patio because of that fact, the constant work required to keep their premises clean, alone establish the nuisance.
In its findings the court found that the overhanging limbs were of no value or use to plaintiffs. Defendants contend that there is no evidence to support this. There is no evidence that the overhanging limbs were of value or use to plaintiffs. The finding is supported.
1. Encroaching Trees
[4] The weight of authority is that to the extent that limbs or roots extend upon an adjoining landowner's property the latter may remove them, but only to the boundary line. (1 Am.Jur. p. 537.) California follows this rule. (Grandona v. [112 Cal.App.2d 6] Lovdal, 78 Cal. 611 [21 P. 366, 12 Am.St.Rep. 121]; Stevens v. Moon, 54 Cal.App. 737 [202 P. 961].)
[5, 6] As to damages, according to 1 American Jurisprudence page 538, the general rule is as follows: "The owner of a tree the branches of which overhang the premises of an adjoining landowner is liable for damages caused by the overhanging branches. And this is so without regard to the extent of the damage resulting therefrom, the insignificance of the injury going to the extent of the recovery, and not to the right of action. ... But it has been held that no landowner has a cause of action from the mere fact that the branches of an innoxious tree, belonging to an adjoining landowner, overhang his premises, his right to cut off the overhanging branches being considered a sufficient remedy." The last statement apparently is the California rule, for no damages were given in the Grandona case. Other cases in California which have given damages have more than mere encroachment; there was damage to crops, etc.
[7] While it is the absolute right of a landowner to remove those portions of trees which encroach on his land whether they cause damage or not, it is rather anomalous that to obtain court help in the matter he must first prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance. In other words, the landowner, merely because he does not desire a neighbor's tree to overhang his premises, can, in a sense, take the law in his own hands and cut off the encroachment, but to act in what is probably a more orderly manner and apply to the court for an injunction restraining the tree owner from allowing the tree to so encroach, he apparently has to prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance. At least, the authorities on this question are not as clear cut as on the other. 1 American Jurisprudence page 538 points out that a few decisions have recognized the right of a landowner to compel the owner of the encroaching tree to remove the encroachment merely because the landowner wants it removed, but that most of the decisions hold that the landowner's relief in this respect can be obtained only under the nuisance statutes and hence a nuisance must be proved. This probably is the rule in California. Most of the cases dealing with the subject have been nuisance cases. The portion of the judgment awarding plaintiffs damages in the sum of $200 is reversed. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. Plaintiffs are awarded costs.
Peters, P. J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.
I had to shorten this case to fit,,here is the link
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/112/1.html&search=trees+injunction+nuisance
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
My response:
First, we're not talking about "fallen trees" (Mattos, supra)
Second, you're obviously not reading close enough. Bonde, supra, states concerning tree limbs:
"[7] While it is the absolute right of a landowner to remove those portions of trees which encroach on his land whether they cause damage or not, it is rather anomalous that to obtain court help in the matter he must first prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance. In other words, the landowner, merely because he does not desire a neighbor's tree to overhang his premises, can, in a sense, take the law in his own hands and cut off the encroachment, but to act in what is probably a more orderly manner and apply to the court for an injunction restraining the tree owner from allowing the tree to so encroach, he apparently has to prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance."
Our original writer has stated that there are a few limbs touching his neighbor's roof. But that, in the absence of damages, does not necessarily mean there's a nuisance!
The neighbor, in order to abate a potential damage-causing nuisance, can cut the limbs to MITIGATE against "perceived" and "potential" damages.
I'm done. I win.
IAAL
First, we're not talking about "fallen trees" (Mattos, supra)
Second, you're obviously not reading close enough. Bonde, supra, states concerning tree limbs:
"[7] While it is the absolute right of a landowner to remove those portions of trees which encroach on his land whether they cause damage or not, it is rather anomalous that to obtain court help in the matter he must first prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance. In other words, the landowner, merely because he does not desire a neighbor's tree to overhang his premises, can, in a sense, take the law in his own hands and cut off the encroachment, but to act in what is probably a more orderly manner and apply to the court for an injunction restraining the tree owner from allowing the tree to so encroach, he apparently has to prove that the encroachment constitutes a nuisance."
Our original writer has stated that there are a few limbs touching his neighbor's roof. But that, in the absence of damages, does not necessarily mean there's a nuisance!
The neighbor, in order to abate a potential damage-causing nuisance, can cut the limbs to MITIGATE against "perceived" and "potential" damages.
I'm done. I win.
IAAL
the trees in both cases were nuisances,,,,and in the fallen tree case,,,the justice discussed in the alternative if they were still standing,,,,,abd the cases speak for them selves.
Bonde v. Bishop
The above testimony is amply sufficient to demonstrate that the overhanging branches are a nuisance. Apparently this is one of those rows between neighbors in which the defendants are standing on what they erroneously believe to be their strict legal rights to the exclusion of any consideration of the fair, decent, neighborly and legal thing to do.
Mattos v. Mattos
But no such showing is required. [2] If the trees remained upright, with some of their branches extending over or upon plaintiff's land, they clearly would constitute a nuisance, which defendant could be required to abate.
Bill
Bonde v. Bishop
The above testimony is amply sufficient to demonstrate that the overhanging branches are a nuisance. Apparently this is one of those rows between neighbors in which the defendants are standing on what they erroneously believe to be their strict legal rights to the exclusion of any consideration of the fair, decent, neighborly and legal thing to do.
Mattos v. Mattos
But no such showing is required. [2] If the trees remained upright, with some of their branches extending over or upon plaintiff's land, they clearly would constitute a nuisance, which defendant could be required to abate.
Bill
Chester Drawers
Junior Member
John Se said:
These neighbors are neighbors only in the sense they live next door. They have been a constant irritation to everyone in theneighborhood. They use the house as a boarding house for their employees, and have had as many as 23 people living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house. They don't clean their yard, and due to crowded conditions, the people who live there are out standing in front of my house at all hours smoking or making phone calls. This whole issue with the tree arose because I had the nerve to go into their place of business and politely ask them to clean up their mess. Being a neighbor is a two way street.
As for trimming the tree, it would take me all of 15 minutes to trim the offending branches, just like I do on my house all the time, but they won't let me do it, they want me to hire a professional. That is money I don't feel like spending.
Oh...and thanks for your valuable insight there.
Chester Drawers
Junior Member
bbear401 said:
So according to the case law you are quoting, the only trees that can be legally allowed to remain standing are those soley within the boudaries of a single property? That doesn't seem to make sense.
Is the simple fact a tree extends over a property line enough to consider it a nuisance?
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
Don't put too much stock in this idiot. If he keeps up this diatribe he won't be here long.Chester Drawers said:
Thank God
IAAL and Belize I am so glad you put this bbear in his place I was starting to wonder if I was going insane, and the only one to see how stupid he is. My God I sure hope your right and he finds his way off these boards soon I almost can't follow these threads for all the mindless case quotes he bestows upon us.
IAAL and Belize I am so glad you put this bbear in his place I was starting to wonder if I was going insane, and the only one to see how stupid he is. My God I sure hope your right and he finds his way off these boards soon I almost can't follow these threads for all the mindless case quotes he bestows upon us.
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
Shel77 said:
My response:
Well, I'm not so sure he deserves being kicked off. At least he's trying. bbear is on the right track, as it were; however, he needs to focus a little better on the actual issues instead of wandering all over the place. But, that's okay. We all started someplace, and at some point in time. Experience will sharpen his edges. At least he's trying to come up with the case law, and that's a lot more than I can say for most writer's to the forums.
IAAL
You Are Guilty
Senior Member
You still might want to explain why AmJur is not an particularly useful source for answering a question like this.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
You Are Guilty said:
It was the fact that this 'person' used AmJur without reading the relevent case law and statutes and interpreting them correctly.
Remember the commercial "this is your brain...this is your brain on drugs"?
Replace the eggs with AmJur
Last edited: