| Author |
Message |
    
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 4:00 pm: | 
|
Since trees don't grow with any regard for property lines... if a tree is 75% on one property and 25% on the other property, who's tree is it? Is it a simple case of "majority rule", or do you actually 'split' the tree with your neighbor (no pun intended).
I know that pruning a tree is based purely on property lines - if the branch overhangs your property its your problem - but what about the actual tree itself? |
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4380
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Time to talk to the other.
It is far better to have an a joint agreed plan than a war.
If you can accept the deal then take it.
Else, I know a few good lawyers to send you to.
But why waste that money?
Later,
George |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
Well George... I'm not sure where you got "war" and "lawyer" from my post, but... thanks?
America, Land of the Fee and Home of the Litigious!
 |
us2inFL
Citizen
Username: Us2innj
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
Two Maplewood instances of tree-harmony. We split the cost for the trimming of a tree that was on one side of our house. Worked out fine.
It was recommended that the tree on the other side of our house get guywires strung through the branches (to avoid limbs being broken in strong winds,) the other neighbor agreed to split the cost and then proceeded to completely forget about it. When nudged with a second reminder (phrased like "oh and the company was here to run the wires through the branches") she said oh okay I will see you later. Never happened. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 726
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 10:38 am: |
|
It helps in these terms to not think of the tree as an object to be owned.
The question of who "owns" a tree is fairly irrelevant at best and misleading at worst.
You seem to understand the rules around trees which cross property lines quite well, and they deal with virtually any tree situation that can be imagined. There are even rules when the tree trunk itself straddles the property line. It's hard to imagine some circumstance involving a tree and a property line that hasn't been dealt with before and therefore has some ordinance or legal precedence to it.
While it causes no end of "war" between neighbors, in reality circumstances surrounding responsibility are quite unambiguous. What causes problems has more to do with what people think the rules should be rather than what they actually are.
Well-intentioned people attempt to circumvent these rules in all manner of ways. Often these intentions and the resulting "handshake agreements" are verbal in nature, subject to misinterpretation, and directly contracdictory to the actual rules. This inevitably leads to further conflict.
One of these notions has to do with a notion of overall "tree ownership." Such a concept presupposes there is one party who is ultimately responsible for all dealings with a particular tree. However the law simply doesn't work this way.
|
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 10:56 am: |
|
So... if a tree is straddling a property line, who would be ultimately responsible if the tree needed to be removed? Its hard for me to assess a percentage without a survey, but from what I can tell there is approximately an 80/20 split (considering the main trunk of the tree). |
Fotboat
Citizen
Username: Fotboat
Post Number: 47
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
I would think that if the tree trunk is straddling the property line, then it was put there to mark the property line, to the concurrence of both property owners of the original developer of the properties, so it should be a 50/50 split. I have two 90year old, 80 foot high Maples that are dead nut on the property lines (back and left side). I assume they were put in around the time the house was built (1917). If the tree ever needed to be removed (diseased) then I would expect a 50/50 split. Actually one large maple was removed from a 3rd property line (right side, between two garages) and the removal was split between the previous owner and my neighbor. The tree was destroying both garages, which were only 6feet apart (back when you only needed to be 3ft from your property line. That tree was there before the garages, and was probably used to mark the left property line back in the day.
Hope this helps
|
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 727
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 12:25 am: |
|
from http://cobrands.public.findlaw.com/real_estate/nolo/faq/d815344d-7aa8-4b48-a1fd1 f04f351504f.html
If the trunk stands partly on the land of two or more people, it is called a boundary tree, and in most cases it belongs to all the property owners. All the owners are responsible for caring for the tree, and one co-owner may not remove a healthy tree without the other owners' permission.
|
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
Ah! Information!!!!
Thank you very much, Argon - interesting website! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page