Check out some similar questions!

ttst12345 · Apr 8, 2009, 05:44 PM

I own a vacant lot next to a park. On Monday, I discovered that a neighbor had hired a tree service to chop down trees there (to improve his view). They had downed 3 cottonwoods (from 12 to 20 feet) by the time I reached them.

Per the tree service: Neighbor told them the property was part of the park, and that he had chopped down trees before. (Not on MY lot, he hasn't.) Tree service didn't know I owned the lot. They were nice people and stopped immediately.

I met with the neighbor. He also stated he didn't know the property was mine, that he thought it was part of the park. I told him that I wouldn't allow him to chop down any more of my trees, and besides we need permits from the City to remove trees. Since the tree service was only hired to cut the trees, but not remove them, I would have ended up with the debris on my lot. I was able to work with them to get the debris removed. But... my neighbor hasn't apologized, and I believe he thinks the matter is over. And he may well be right.

From what I’ve learned from attorneys and City ordinances, I’m screwed!

-- I can’t charge (the tree service) with trespassing because he didn’t know it was my property.
-- It’s a civil matter, so it’s just between him and me.
-- Even if I wanted to get tree replacement monies, they were fairly mature trees, and cottonwoods – pretty much considered a nuisance “weedy” tree (per City ordinance). The judge probably wouldn’t award me any money. So I probably couldn’t legally ask the neighbor to replace the trees.
-- He thought it was the park, and of course chopping down trees on public property can have a stiff fine, but it has nothing to do with me. It would be up to the City to pursue punishing him.
-- The trees on the lot didn’t serve much purpose, so losing privacy, aesthetic considerations etc. aren’t really applicable.
-- Here’s the beautiful part: If for some reason the City decides to pursue, they’ll probably punish ME (property owner) and make me follow up with the neighbor on my own to get compensation. As a result, I haven’t contacted the City Arborist.

How on Earth could this be? A careless and selfish guy just chopped down three trees on my property and I have to swallow it? I might even get punished for it? Even if I was in the mood (which I’m not), I couldn’t retaliate by choppping down his trees, since I know they belong to him.

Come ON, something’s got to be wrong here. I don’t believe in frivolous lawsuits, but I also don’t believe you can just go into someone’s property and chop down their trees, even if you didn’t know they belonged to someone (especially if you thought it was a public park).

Any advice or insight besides “just let it go?”

ScottGem · Apr 8, 2009, 05:58 PM

Is there anything, fences, boundaries, signs that might indicate the lot is private property?

ttst12345 · Apr 8, 2009, 06:00 PM

Now that you mention it... I had a survey done recently and the surveyor has put down white boundary posts along the lot line of the property. I wonder if that's sufficient illustration of ownership.

ttst12345 · Apr 8, 2009, 06:00 PM

Also, there was a notice of proposed land use action last Spring posted for a month.

ScottGem · Apr 8, 2009, 06:09 PM

I would get an estimate of the damages done and file suit against the neighbor. You might want to keep it under your local small claims limit.

If he argues that he though it was part of the park the judge will likely ask why he would think he can cut down trees in a public park. If he says he didn't know who owned the judge will ask why he thought he could curt down trees on private property. So he's in trouble either way. I tink you will win a judgement.

ttst12345 · Apr 8, 2009, 07:28 PM

Thank you, Scott. I understand your suggestion. The problem here is that the trees he cut down are cottonwoods and considered "weedy" or junk trees.

I'm trying to determine how much replacement trees would cost, but since they're weedy trees, they might not be available. So it could be said that my "damages" are very small - i.e. my actual dollar loss isn't much.

BTW -- If anyone can recommend a nursery that can help me purchase a 12' tall cottonwood (or at least 6'), it would be very helpful.

ttst12345 · Apr 8, 2009, 07:30 PM

One bright spot: I've checked the City's tree ordinance and it doesn't look like any rules have been violated. Now, if it had actually *been* the park, that would be different. :)

excon · Apr 9, 2009, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by ttst12345

I'm trying to determine how much replacement trees would cost, but since they're weedy trees, they might not be available. So it could be said that my "damages" are very small - i.e., my actual dollar loss isn't much... If anyone can recommend a nursery that can help me purchase a 12' tall cottonwood (or at least 6'), it would be very helpful.

Hello tt:

I'd sue the crap out of him... I don't know who considers your trees to be "weedy", but maybe your judge will be a Cottonwood lover. The fact that he didn't know it was your property won't help his defense, either. He's supposed to KNOW stuff before he starts cutting down trees.

Plus, I suggest that you don't even KNOW the value of your trees because you haven't contacted a nursery. I don't know about you, but I think mature trees are worth a LOT.

excon

ScottGem · Apr 9, 2009, 04:31 AM

I also don't think the nature of the trees matter as much as that he willfully caused property damage. A nursery should be able to place a value on the trees, not necessarily a replacement value but the value of mature trees.

ttst12345 · Apr 9, 2009, 04:12 PM

excon and ScottGem - thanks very much for your answers.

I would LOVE to "sue the crap outta him." But AFAIK, it's a civil offense and I can't sue for trespassing or property damage - only for the replacement cost (or worth) of the mature trees.

I loved them, but my City labels cottonwoods as "weeds" and I don't believe nurseries even sell them.* The $$ I could recover wouldn't be much.

Hence my outrage: Guy walks over to my yard, chops down my trees to improve his view, and his only punishment will be to reimburse me what they were "worth" - and they may have been "worthless."

*excon's right, though - I should get the facts about the trees' worth before moaning about how cheap they are.

ScottGem · Apr 9, 2009, 04:24 PM

Who is telling you that you can't sue for property damage. This person caused damage to your property. How can you not sue for that?

Fr_Chuck · Apr 9, 2009, 04:28 PM

you are thinking what a judge could do, stupid thing to do, you keep saying they had no value, of course not, a full grown tree is a big value to land, for shade, to add value for resale and more.
And who gives a flip what your city labels them, they cut them down, and the value to replace them are owed.

Money you could collect, to put a full grown tree in, would be a large amount, you are just "thinking" yourself out of a lot of money here.

You sue the neighbor and the tree service both, who cares if they did not know, they will have liablity insurance, and the neighbor has home owners insurance, that is where the money pockets are at.

And no facts on the trees, just what the value to put them back, period, that is the only fact you need.

Out of the 1000's of I want to sue, this is the best case I have heard in months here, I would love to have this one, I can see this being in the 1000's of dollars.

ttst12345 · Apr 9, 2009, 05:33 PM

Sounds to me like I should get a real attorney. :) You folks have given me more confidence to go ahead.

My info came from an atty at JustAnswer.com. It just didn't sound right to me, so I asked the question in several different ways - and she kept coming back with the same answer.

My knowledge of real estate law is very limited. Your answers are *very* worthwhile to me. Hey - is anyone an attorney?

ScottGem · Apr 9, 2009, 05:38 PM

Did you tell this person the town you are in? Was this person from that area?

ttst12345 · Apr 9, 2009, 05:56 PM

The attorney knew it was Washington State, but now that I look at her profile, I see that she is licensed in CA and MI, and that she specializes in employment law.

Here's a link to the thread. I don't know if you can read it all. (Washington State, city withheld for now) --On M... - JustAnswer

ScottGem · Apr 9, 2009, 06:08 PM

The first answer that Tina G gave seems fine. Saying basically what we have said. The cost of appraisal should be included in the amount of your suit.

excon · Apr 10, 2009, 06:31 AM

Hello again, t:

Hopefully, you're now going to sue the crap out of him...

By the way, you don't need, and can't even have, a lawyer with you in small claims court... Don't waste you money. The JUDGE is a lawyer and THAT lawyers decision is all you need.

Come on, you know you can't lose.

excon