Am I responsible for tree roots compromising neighbor's fence foundation?

[RTouche]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My neighbor has asked me to pay part (or all) for the costs of repair to his fence at the back of our properties because the contractor he has hired to repair his leaning fence says that the roots from a large tree on my property within several feet of his fence are causing it to be compromised. The tree was there before the concrete wall was put up and a chain-link fence existed there before this neighbor moved in (within the past 10 years). He seems to think that I am partially or fully responsible financially to help pay for repairs to his fence because of the roots of my tree. Can I be sued for the cost of repairs to his fence?

{He is very forceful when he approaches me about these issues and he usually has already hired a contractor to do work on his property before he comes to me to request that I pay the costs of the contractor. He has already done this to me previously and so I paid for something I was not responsible for in the past because of the urgency of having the contractor do his work. My neighbor is very clever in his stratagem}.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My neighbor has asked me to pay part (or all) for the costs of repair to his fence at the back of our properties because the contractor he has hired to repair his leaning fence says that the roots from a large tree on my property within several feet of his fence are causing it to be compromised. The tree was there before the concrete wall was put up and a chain-link fence existed there before this neighbor moved in (within the past 10 years). He seems to think that I am partially or fully responsible financially to help pay for repairs to his fence because of the roots of my tree. Can I be sued for the cost of repairs to his fence?

{He is very forceful when he approaches me about these issues and he usually has already hired a contractor to do work on his property before he comes to me to request that I pay the costs of the contractor. He has already done this to me previously and so I paid for something I was not responsible for in the past because of the urgency of having the contractor do his work. My neighbor is very clever in his stratagem}.

I certainly would not take responsibility for that. He chose to put the fence near an existing tree. Stop letting his "urgency" get in the way of a carefully thought out decision.

 

[justalayman]

I'll chase this a bit more but a real quick read suggests yes, you are liable for damages your roots cause. To believe you would be immune to being held from being liable for damages your plants cause would be unreasonable.


The two wrenches in the mess are;

does the fact it was preexisting make a difference. I do not believe so but will chase it a bit.

And was he obligated to mitigate his damages and as such may not be able to claim for the extent of the damages. The argument there would be that if he was aware of the roots and failed to cut them prior to the damages or at least to reduce the severity of the damages is able to seek the total amount of damages from you.

As to the neigbor contracting the work and then expecting you to pay; the only argument you have there is: are the charges unreasonsble. If he throws money at contractors to do the work when the market value of the work is actuslly much lower you could dispute the amount over the market value. Other than that he is within his rights to expect payment for work undertake to cure damages you or your trees caused.

 

[justalayman]

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/17/450.html

crance v. hems (1936) 17 Cal. app. 2d 450

In Parker v. Larsen, 86 Cal. 236 [21 Am.St.Rep. 30, 24 P. 989], it is said: 'The rule is general, that, where one brings a foreign substance upon his land, he must take care of it, and not permit it to injure his neighbor. The law upon the subject is tersely expressed in the maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non leadas.' See, also, Tuebner v. California St. R. R. Co., 66 Cal. 171 [4 P. 1162], Gardner v. Stroever, 89 Cal. 26 [26 P. 618], Schneider v. Brown, 85 Cal. 205 [24 P. 715], Sullivan v. Royer, 72 Cal. 248 [13 P. 655, 1 Am.St.Rep. 51], and Buckingham v. Elliott, 62 Miss. 296 [52 Am. Rep. 188], upholding the right of action where the roots of a tree on adjoining land invaded plaintiff's well, and wherein the court said: 'It seems to be settled law that overhanging branches are a nuisance, and it must follow that invading roots are. The person intruded on by branches may cut them off; it must be true that one may cut off invading roots; it must be true that he who is injured by encroaching roots from his neighbor's tree can recover damages sustained from them. The right of action seems clear.'"

 

[RTouche]

My neighbor has just informed me that to repair the section of fence compromised by the root(s) could cost about $750. However, since the root(s) extends under his fence, it will have to be trenched and cut. I asked him about the possibility of killing the tree since the root(s) would be within 6 feet of the trunk. He seems to think that it would become my problem if the tree were to die and become unstable (and possibly fall over) and that I should incur the costs of having my tree removed at my expense. He is very pushy about having the fence repaired immediately which includes the cutting of the [deep] root(s). I have asked him to hold off cutting the root(s) until I can determine what the consequences would be to the tree, but he wants to move ahead with his repairs anyway and the problem with the tree dying is of no concern to him. I saw in some other posts that if a tree is killed by someone without the permission of the person whose property it is on, that the cost for the damage could be 2-3 times (the value of the tree?). I am not sure how to deal with him on this issue and I don't want to seem to be unreasonably contentious about who is responsible for the potentially fatal damage to the tree.

 

[justalayman]

If it causes fatal harm to the tree it becomes a very big issue (and possibly very expensive) and quite possibly for him. To start with an arborist must be consulted to determine if the roots can be cut without killing the tree or destabilizing it.



If he is in such a hurry it could result in him learning a very expensive lesson. We are talking about a situation that could run into 10's of thousands of dollars. Not consulting an attorney (especislly him since he has the greatest risk if he injures the tree without a legal right to) is foolish.

If nothing else you should send him a (written) notice to refrain from acting before the situation can be investigated by an arborist. (And attorneys all around would be wise)

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Fences exist in the air, suspended by posts. Perhaps the discussion should be about relocating a post.

 

[RTouche]

Fences exist in the air, suspended by posts. Perhaps the discussion should be about relocating a post.

This is a brick wall which goes into the ground.