Neighbor has cut down our trees

[carapace]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington State.
This is the second time our neighbor has cut down trees on our property. The first time he did it, several years ago, he claimed he "got carried away" with trimming. Last year the neighbors asked us if they could trim (cut to the ground) our trees again but we said we wanted to keep the trees the way they are because we enjoy bird watching and the birds enjoy the trees. I found the neighbor in our ravine with a chain saw and 26 trees cut to the ground last week. They want the trees down to maximize their view of Puget Sound. The trees are very clearly on our property. When I sent them a polite email suggesting either we share the cost of a line survey if there is debate about the property line, or agree to use a trail running through the property as an effective boundary line, they refused to answer the email. I sent a certified letter yesterday and they have yet to claim it. I have researched the law and understand I am entitled to 3X the cost of replacement trees if this was done intentionally. My first question is how to get an estimate for replacing trees that were 20-50 feet high. They just aren't sold at nurseries. Of course the cost of labor should be included in the damages. I want to avoid small claims court but the last time the neighbor did this I replanted at my own cost, I'm not doing that again. I also feel the neighbor is a repeat offender and my biggest goal is to ensure this doesn't happen again. I think they will continue to take advantage of our good nature if we again turn the other cheek.
Thanks for all advice and suggestions on how to proceed.

 

[FarmerJ]

search for a aborist to help you determine the value of what they cut down, after you get a boundry survey so you know exactly where your lot lines are then see a atty and sue them,

 

[ecmst12]

I don't think this is going to be a small claims matter.

 

[carapace]

Can I go to small claims court with my damages and my lot map and say this is what I expect as reparation. Should I pay for a survey done first and then of course ask for that as part of the settlement? I don't feel the burden of proof and the cost of the survey should be on me. The neighbor knew it was my land, he admitted that the property line takes "an unfortunate turn" as he sees it. Legally this is trespassing and vandalism, should I be involving the police? What course do I have to ensure this doesn't happen again? I have to ask for money, I plan to ask for money, it's negative reinforcement for him and frankly, even though apparently it's has nothing to do with this...it's justice.
Any other advice, cynical or practical will greatly be appreciated.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

26 trees? 3x value? You could be looking at $100,000 ... really

 

[csi7]

A fence put up on the boundary line would solve the problem of trespassing.
If you have pictures of the last time the trees were cut, the cost of the replacement trees, and the ones from this time, it will help.
A google map picture may show the view as needed so the line curve that the neighbor cuts down to improve their view, to provide the proof of what the neighbor did, along with the neighbor's statement will help as well.
It seriously depends on an tree survey, property survey, and yes, it will be out of your pocket.
You can ask for the costs to be paid for by the neighbor.
If you are not allowed a fence, find out what the restrictions say about trees/natural boundaries. One neighbor has a 18" fence all the way down in the front of their house, and it's enough to keep the neighbor from trimming the trees past the fence line.

 

[FarmerJ]

Survey Its one of them things live with the cost so you know exactly where your boundry is, Small claims NO , because more than the value of large trees is gone now, your property also had another benefit from the trees land with trees is more pleasing than land with out them if you think im kidding just ask any realtor how the lack of trees impacts a propertys value , especially with markets that are so messed up still , If you caught nbr by all means call the police and file property damage report. Small claims , NO way so what about the nbrs view to bad , if they wanted a good view should they not have bought property that was even higher up. See a atty. See a arborist to determine the value of the trees.

 

[tranquility]

Two cut down tree posts in the same day with some similar facts but from different people?
(https://forum.freeadvice.com/neighbors-boundaries-108/neighbors-have-trespassed-cut-down-trees-577616.html)

It must be springtime. (Or, homework.)

 

[154NH773]

All good suggestions; survey, arborist, documentation, attorney, etc. Take lots of photos.

A friend had this happen in NY and we took photos from the air. It took about 3 years, but he got a settlement in court of around $15,000 for about 10 trees.

The 3X amount is probably for "timber trespass", when a logger crosses over the line and "steals" timber. Your case should be based on the reduced value of your property and/or the replacement cost of the trees. I agree that the value is probably much more than Small Claims.

Talk to a good lawyer.

 

[latigo]

I’m taking sides with the chain saw.

As have a host of coastal communities such as Tuburon, Marin County California’s “View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees“, voter-approved ordinance * that grants property owners,

“The right to preserve and seek restoration of views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied a property, when such views or sunlight are from the primary living area or active use area and have subsequently been unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees.”

In addition,

"No person shall plant, maintain or permit to grow any tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area....” Owners of neighboring parcels who violate this act may be ordered to trim, thin, top or even remove their offending trees.”
___________________

Unfortunately, similar legislation is unlikely to exist in your area, although it should. And you will probably end up having your way in court.

But at least for some time in the distant future the neighbor will be able to enjoy the ocean view he dearly paid for.
_________________________

In the meantime, to satisfy you “Audubonical” (sic) needs you can rent one of Alfred Hitchc*o*c*k's screen/screaming thrillers.
_________________________


[*]This and a similar ordinance from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have been upheld by the California Court of Appeals as a reasonable exercise of traditional police power.

 

[154NH773]

[*]This and a similar ordinance from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have been upheld by the California Court of Appeals as a reasonable exercise of traditional police power.

Although we don't know the specifics of the OP's situation, it is a moot point if this type of legislation doesn't exist where he lives.

It is hard to see how this type of legislation could be found legal, as it is usually unconstitutional to enforce a retroactive law (forcing the cutting down of a previously existing tree that has grown essentially on its own). Or; according to a reading of the quoted law, had simply been "maintained" and perhaps not grown at all into the view, but simply blocked the sunlight on a newly constructed home. You didn't say whether the California Supreme Court had upheld the decision.

 

[justalayman]

154NH773;3038450]Although we don't know the specifics of the OP's situation, it is a moot point if this type of legislation doesn't exist where he lives.

while, at least to my knowledge, Washington does not have any laws creating view easements, there are many areas that endorse such easements in HOA CCR's and can be implemented into any deed even without an HOA. OP could have such restrictions either through a deed restriction or if a member of an HOA, through the CCR's.

It is hard to see how this type of legislation could be found legal, as it is usually unconstitutional to enforce a retroactive law (forcing the cutting down of a previously existing tree that has grown essentially on its own). Or; according to a reading of the quoted law, had simply been "maintained" and perhaps not grown at all into the view, but simply blocked the sunlight on a newly constructed home.

It is usually based on the ability to have some particular view. As the tree grows, it must be cut to maintain the rights of the easement. It is not a retroactive imposition.

a person that builds a new home will typically have no more rights to any particular view than exactly what they have at the time of the building.

 

[154NH773]

OP could have such restrictions either through a deed restriction or if a member of an HOA, through the CCR's.

It is usually based on the ability to have some particular view. As the tree grows, it must be cut to maintain the rights of the easement.

True; I started to write a long paragraph about existing easements, etc., but since the OP just stated that they had made the cut to "maximize their view", and had not mentioned any such "view easements" or CCR's, I decided not to muddy the waters.

That might be an avenue for the OP to investigate. He could sell the offending neighbor a view easement for the value of the trees and future maintenance costs, or based on the improved value to the neighbor's property. However; he should determine if the cutting effects the value of his property, and adjust the easement price accordingly.

Or just sue...