TNCR Brain Trust Question
-
@aqua-letifer said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
Buy yourself an assload of squirrel feed. Bird feed. Anything feed. Cultivate a woodland creature sanctuary.
Owls or large birds would be most ideal.
They do have a tiny dog which would make a good target for training a hunting hawk...
-
@ivorythumper said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@larry said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
My guess is their lawyer knows full well that his letter has no force of law, but sent it because that's what he was hired to do. My guess is he expects he will hear from your lawyer, they'll both make a little money, and then their lawyer will tell them they don't stand a chance in court and need to reach a compromise.
I know the type of people your neighbors are - get a lawyer, get a judge's ruling, and then once a judge clarifies the law to them, hire a couple of flunkies to trim the tree. The "value" they are assigning to that tree is ridiculous, by the way.
I have no need to compromise, and it is against my interests at that point: ""the landowner's right to peaceably enjoy full, exclusive use of his property"" That tree is now a source of my lack of peaceable enjoyment and I don't ever want to have to think about it again.
Once I have a judge's ruling there is no compromise.
I don't care what they do to the tree, or what happens to it, as long as it is not trespassing on my property.
I didnt say you needed to compromise. I said their attorney would tell them they need to compromise.
If you are so certain as to what the law says, then you lose nothing by having the benefit of a judge's ruling. It stops them from doing anything. Or, you can decide to just go on and do it, and then spend ten times as much money dealing with a neighborthat thinks he's just as right as you do. Doesn't matter to me.
-
@Ivorythumper , retain a lawyer to get you a the court order that compels your neighbor to remedy the trespass. Go straight to the court rather than responding to the neighbor's lawyer. Good luck.
-
@axtremus said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@Ivorythumper , retain a lawyer to get you a the court order that compels your neighbor to remedy the trespass. Go straight to the court rather than responding to the neighbor's lawyer. Good luck.
You can't "go straight to the court" unless you opt to be your own attorney. And as the saying goes, "a man who is his own attorney has a fool for a client". And if you do retain a lawyer, he is obligated to discuss the case with the opposing attorney and try to settle the matter out of court.
-
Late to the party. Agree with Larry, you need to lawyer up. Once represented, their lawyer can no longer communicate directly with you. I would think it in their interest to remove the limb for should it fall on your property or person, the fact you informed them of this hazard might indicate a higher degree of negligence and perhaps influence a jury that the award to you (the plaintiff) be larger.
-
I am very, very cheap
Before I got a lawyer, I would try a few free (government) alternatives
The police would be a good place to start, these guys are breaking the law, call the police
Call the mayor
Call the attorney general
Call the zoning board
Call the local newspaper
Call the HOA
I would
If, in the end, you need a lawyer, then get a lawyer
-
@klaus said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
Having a bad relationship with neighbours is one of the worst things for ones quality of life, in my opinion. We had bad neighbour relationships in the past, and that was hell. I personally am willing to endure and sacrifice a lot before I risk an angry neighbour.
But in this case, it seems that hope is lost. When lawyers are involved, the relationship is beyond repair.
That was my first thought as well. I don’t have anything insightful to say beyond what’s already been shared - but sorry you gotta deal with that.
-
@aqua-letifer said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
Get as many and as loud wind chimes as possible and hang them on your side of the tree.
This.
-
A bit of a ramble, but…
IT, as a neighbor and with the time that has passed, it might be worth one last personal conversation that states that it’s easiest if they take their own arborist quote and trim the tree. Otherwise you’ll regretfully be forced to get a judicial order of clarity with the law clearly on your side.
Also, trees grow. This problem will only get worse, and even after remedy, it’ll begin to return over the following decade or two.
Oh also, whether you or they trim the tree, I’d imagine it would take a long while for permanent damage to be done. Further, trees are really resilient so I doubt anything would happen for a while anyway.
Plus if they end up trimming, and don’t go all the way to the property line, you could finish the job and if down the road there is damage to the tree, it would be hard to prove direct responsibility.
In short. Talk to the neighbor, otherwise get a judge/lawyer to provide official clarity, then trim baby trim.
-
@ivorythumper said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@george-k said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@ivorythumper said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@jolly said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
Is there anything growing underneath the tree and is the neighbor's backyard camera'd.
I'm not about to poison it, if that's what you're thinking.
Yeah, that would have some serious legal
exposure. Destroying neighbor's property?Don't go there.
The law basically requires me to get a judgment compelling them to remedy.
I read of a case where the neighbor trimmed to the property line, but the tree then leaned back away from the property line, and the neighbor was sued for over trimming and trespass damage.
I don't know how that was settled but I don't need any exposure to risk.
So the plea to the court would be to compel the neighbor to remedy at their own expense and liability. If the tree dies, that's on them. If any damage happens, that's on them. If the tree cannot be pruned back to property line without risk or damage, and has to be removed, that's on them. The tree is just in the wrong place and has been for decades as soon as it started to trespass. The trespass is negligence which is continuous and always tortious.
So get the judge to say to them "you must remedy the trespass as you see fit, but you must remedy the trespass".
That's how I'm reading the law as the only safe way to proceed without further legal entanglement.
Let me give an example of the folly of interpreting the law yourself: you tell us the law regarding encroachment onto your property - but you also point out that this encroachment is decades old. In quite a few states, if you do not make a formal complaint within a set period of time, the law assumes that you accept said encroachment and you forfeit any claim of redress. In my state for instance, I think it's 7 years.
-
@larry said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
the law assumes that you accept said encroachment and you forfeit any claim of redress. In my state for instance, I think it's 7 years.
I've heard of this before. There's a name for it but can't think of it right now.
It's the same premise if a neighbor builds something that crosses your property line, you realize it and do nothing about it. I think the time limit starts at the point you realize the trespass, not when the actual trespass occurred.
We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on. -
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@larry said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@ivorythumper said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@george-k said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@ivorythumper said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@jolly said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
Is there anything growing underneath the tree and is the neighbor's backyard camera'd.
I'm not about to poison it, if that's what you're thinking.
Yeah, that would have some serious legal
exposure. Destroying neighbor's property?Don't go there.
The law basically requires me to get a judgment compelling them to remedy.
I read of a case where the neighbor trimmed to the property line, but the tree then leaned back away from the property line, and the neighbor was sued for over trimming and trespass damage.
I don't know how that was settled but I don't need any exposure to risk.
So the plea to the court would be to compel the neighbor to remedy at their own expense and liability. If the tree dies, that's on them. If any damage happens, that's on them. If the tree cannot be pruned back to property line without risk or damage, and has to be removed, that's on them. The tree is just in the wrong place and has been for decades as soon as it started to trespass. The trespass is negligence which is continuous and always tortious.
So get the judge to say to them "you must remedy the trespass as you see fit, but you must remedy the trespass".
That's how I'm reading the law as the only safe way to proceed without further legal entanglement.
Let me give an example of the folly of interpreting the law yourself: you tell us the law regarding encroachment onto your property - but you also point out that this encroachment is decades old. In quite a few states, if you do not make a formal complaint within a set period of time, the law assumes that you accept said encroachment and you forfeit any claim of redress. In my state for instance, I think it's 7 years.
The case law, as determined by Pennsylvania Superior Court holds that trees are simple trespass and always manifest negligence, and that a trespassing tree has no settled claim to adverse possession or right of easement. This question is actually open, see the note below, but the finding seems to hold its anomalous and presents other difficulties. The trespass is continuing, and the landowner is always entitled to pursue a remedy against encroachment.
While states clearly have the right to set their own laws, the case law on these matters often seems to apply the solution of other jurisdictions, and is grounded in English common law of encroachment. Some states don't rely on common law tradition, but on statutes. I'd think if you're in one of the original colonies the common law would serve as the basis, but that's just a guess. It's interesting that self remedy is always available, but in some jurisdictions that tree trespass is not actionable, and self help is the only remedy -- the "Massachusetts Rule" -- while other jurisdictions require sensible or substantial damage to be actionable.
Fortunately, in PA I appear to be on very firm ground with Wagner V Jones, if other jurisdictions see it differently. I won't take this on myself, but will use an attorney because I just don't need the agita.
-
@larry said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@axtremus said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@Ivorythumper , retain a lawyer to get you a the court order that compels your neighbor to remedy the trespass. Go straight to the court rather than responding to the neighbor's lawyer. Good luck.
You can't "go straight to the court" unless you opt to be your own attorney. And as the saying goes, "a man who is his own attorney has a fool for a client". And if you do retain a lawyer, he is obligated to discuss the case with the opposing attorney and try to settle the matter out of court.
PA has a Court of Common Pleas for this sort of action without necessitating lawyers. I would rather the lawyers just agreed to have the tree trimmed to compliance with the property line -- that is the only settlement worth getting as the tree is certain to grow back over time. If the neighbors don't agree, then it proceeds to court. Otherwise I'm trying to negotiate for something that is in no way in my interest to negotiate. Now if they want to give me $50,000 to let their tree grow over my property for the next 10 years, I'm happy to lease them the air rights... since they value it so much.
-
@89th said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
A bit of a ramble, but…
IT, as a neighbor and with the time that has passed, it might be worth one last personal conversation that states that it’s easiest if they take their own arborist quote and trim the tree. Otherwise you’ll regretfully be forced to get a judicial order of clarity with the law clearly on your side.
Also, trees grow. This problem will only get worse, and even after remedy, it’ll begin to return over the following decade or two.
Oh also, whether you or they trim the tree, I’d imagine it would take a long while for permanent damage to be done. Further, trees are really resilient so I doubt anything would happen for a while anyway.
Plus if they end up trimming, and don’t go all the way to the property line, you could finish the job and if down the road there is damage to the tree, it would be hard to prove direct responsibility.
In short. Talk to the neighbor, otherwise get a judge/lawyer to provide official clarity, then trim baby trim.
That's my generally irenic approach. I'd rather talk them, but they brought in a lawyer to talk for them. So I don't want to put anything in writing, or even say anything that they might use to contest or to negotiate. They and their lawyer) have already made threats of liability, which I can and will use if necessary, but it seems better to just argue on the points of law and keep the personal acrimony out of it.
Look at the image above -- 40% of the canopy will be removed to remedy the trespass. I would not go to court asking for a partial remedy to trespass, that would be ridiculous and open the door to protracted negotiation over something I don't want at all.
The removal will kill the tree over time, or make it unstable and hazardous. So it has to come down. But I will not get them to agree to just remove the tree -- they have too much emotionally invested in this already.
I don't see the neighborly approach as anything but messier and more aggro.
-
@improviso said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
@larry said in TNCR Brain Trust Question:
the law assumes that you accept said encroachment and you forfeit any claim of redress. In my state for instance, I think it's 7 years.
I've heard of this before. There's a name for it but can't think of it right now.
It's the same premise if a neighbor builds something that crosses your property line, you realize it and do nothing about it. I think the time limit starts at the point you realize the trespass, not when the actual trespass occurred.
As Mik noted, adverse possession. Adverse possession, or claim of prescriptive easement by statute of limitations (21 years in PA), has not been determined for trees, but the PA case cites a case in Kansas where prescriptive rights don't apply to air space, hence presumably not tree limbs. But the case law finds it ambiguous and unsettled. If they contest it on those grounds, then it might well find its way up through the courts...
"Id.;[3]see, Sustrik v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., 413 Pa. 324, 197 A.2d 44 (1964). We are convinced that Pennsylvania law, as embodied in the Restatement, entitles a landowner to protect his property interest by maintaining an action to compel a person who has caused a trespass to remove it. It is not suggested anywhere that a showing of harm is a prerequisite to recovering in trespass. A landowner in this Commonwealth *112 may avail himself of every available remedial avenue in an effort to protect the incidents of land ownership. Anything less, in our view, is a travesty."
the [3] note refers to the following, which presents the ambiguity:
"This comment contains a qualification. The Restatement notes that a continuing trespass is not a trespass at all if the actor causing the trespass has obtained an easement by adverse possession. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 161, comment d. We cannot help but wonder whether the continued presence of encroaching tree branches, held openly, notoriously, hostilely, and continually for 21 years would create a prescriptive easement in the airspace which they hang. If this would be the case, and we can find no Pennsylvania law which would indicate that a prescriptive easement is not available in this situation, a landowner who suffers actual harm for the first time during the tree owner's twenty-second year of hostile ownership, might very well be precluded from seeking a judicial, or even self-help, remedy. This result, while not entirely unforeseeable, is anomalous. However, if an action is available without a showing of damage, the landowner has no reason to complain if a neighbor's tree causes damage after the prescriptive period has run. See, contra, Pierce v. Casady, 11 Kan.App.2d 23, 711 P.2d 766 (1985) (holding that airspace is generally not subject to prescriptive rights)."
