• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Dangerous oak tree

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

F

florida oaks

Guest
What is the name of your state?undefinedWhat is the name of your state? Florida

I have very large oak trees in my back yard that are rooted in a section of my neighbors property that is primarily wooded. One, near the property line, has been leaning toward the center of my house and is currently at about a 45 degree angle. App. 25 feet of the trunk is on the neighbors and the balance 40+/- feet overhangs my yard when viewed from the property line below.

When routinely having the trees trimmed, the tree service informed me the leaning tree is rotted on the interior and dangerous. Cutting the top portion that overhangs my yard is as costly as removing the entire tree (many thousands of dollars). In addition, accessing the tree from my property requires crossing my drain field with heavy equipment. A second service confirmed.

I approached my neighbor to ask if he would share in the cost of removal and allow access from his property. He informed me that when it falls it is my problem. He had no liability and did not want his yard or wooded area disturbed, but I should feel free to remove it and pay for it, if I desired.

I contacted my insurance agent who informed me of recent Florida legislation, where neither my neighbor's nor my insurance company may have an obligation to pay for removal or property damage, should the tree fall, because it was a neglected known danger and thus outside the 'Act of God' status.

It seems a no win for me. Very costly tree removal of someones elses tree OR many thousands of dollars in damage and inconvenience when my residence is struck, coupled with the possibility of no insurance coverage.

Can anyone explain the recent legislation as it pertains and advise me on how to put some burden on my neighbor?
 


N

Neighbor Jim

Guest
Here's my tree story

I was in your position very nearly here in CA, except that thankfully the tree in question was not one of our sacred Oaks. Initially, I had your viewpoint. Eventually, I came around to a new perspective and now that the project is completed, I am extremely satisified w/ the outcome: I paid 100% for the $2800 tree & stump removal, my neighbor granted me access to his property, required I used insured and bonded tree professionals (he required I furnish written proof which the tree co. had and provided for no extra charge). I now have peace of mind knowing my structures are safe and I continue a good relationship with my neighbor. Although common sense (and perhaps the law in your area) might seem to dictate your neighbors' ponying up some $$$, I think your best bet with the long term in mind (not to mention cheapest) is going to be to assume the project 100% on your own. Even if the project costs you $6,000 out of pocket, consider the potential damages you face (which you obviously are aware of). Consider it cheap & effective insurance that will actually do what you need done....protect your home. It WILL be DISASTEROUS to experience any of the other possibilities you mentioned-I'm so glad your post indicates you are not in that position...YET. I don't regret my chosen course of action one bit. Pay the $$$ and hire a pro tree company, and thank your neighbor with a $15 -$35 bottle of wine for his cooperation. Then treat yourself to a nice spa, mudbath, or pedicure. You'll still be money way ahead and have that priceless commodity that helps us enjoy life to the fullest-peace of mind! Best wishes to you! :rolleyes:
 
F

florida oaks

Guest
Thanks for your response

Jim,

Thanks for your response. I had intended to pay the whole amount for the peace of mind and safety you mentioned, until my neighbor became a butt head. Then I changed my mind.

In the long run, your advise is good. Thanks for bringing me back to my senses.

I like the facial, pedicure, etc etc, however, I can't bring myself to bring him a bottle of wine just yet..... :)
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
The whole point is that you, since the tree is on your property, are solely responsible for the cost of removing it. Simply because roots and branches overhang your neighbor's property does not convey ownership to the neighbor.

The neighbor does, in fact, have the right to trim the overhang but nothing else.
 

JETX

Senior Member
"One, near the property line, has been leaning toward the center of my house and is currently at about a 45 degree angle. App. 25 feet of the trunk is on the neighbors and the balance 40+/- feet overhangs my yard when viewed from the property line below."
*** So, is this tree on YOUR property or your neighbors??? As I see it from your description, it appears that the tree is on your neighbors property and grows at an angle..... over YOUR property. Is that correct?? If so, then removing the hazard (your post says the tree is "rotted on the interior and dangerous") is your neighbors responsibility. You are allowed to 'trim and maintain' any portion of the tree that crosses the property line.
However, if this tree is actually on YOUR property, it is yours.

"When routinely having the trees trimmed, the tree service informed me the leaning tree is rotted on the interior and dangerous. Cutting the top portion that overhangs my yard is as costly as removing the entire tree (many thousands of dollars). In addition, accessing the tree from my property requires crossing my drain field with heavy equipment. A second service confirmed."
*** Then I strongly suggest you make arrangements to protect your property by removing the portion of the tree that is hazardous. After doing so, then you might consider taking legal action (small claims) to try to recover any damages you claim.
 
B

blameshifting

Guest
If OP doesn't want to pay for the removal he needs to take his neighbor to court (not small claims court), prove the tree is a nuisance and have the court order the neighbor to remove the nuisance.

Trimming the tree and taking the bill to small claims court isn't going to work, the neighbor has no responsibility to pay for OP's trimming of his tree.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
blameshifting said:
If OP doesn't want to pay for the removal he needs to take his neighbor to court (not small claims court), prove the tree is a nuisance and have the court order the neighbor to remove the nuisance.

Trimming the tree and taking the bill to small claims court isn't going to work, the neighbor has no responsibility to pay for OP's trimming of his tree.

Really? And of course, after reading both my and Jet's response you know for a certainty where the tree is located and as a result can divine the outcome of any legal proceedings?

What are the next powerball numbers?
 
B

blameshifting

Guest
BelizeBreeze said:
Really? And of course, after reading both my and Jet's response you know for a certainty where the tree is located and as a result can divine the outcome of any legal proceedings?

What are the next powerball numbers?
I wouldn't look to either your post or Jet's post to determine where the tree is located. I had no difficulty figuring out where the tree is located from the original post and I am certain of it's location.

I don't divine the outcome of legal proceedings.
 

JETX

Senior Member
blameshifting said:
If OP doesn't want to pay for the removal he needs to take his neighbor to court (not small claims court), prove the tree is a nuisance and have the court order the neighbor to remove the nuisance.

Trimming the tree and taking the bill to small claims court isn't going to work, the neighbor has no responsibility to pay for OP's trimming of his tree.
You're an idiot!!! And clearly have NO legal concept of small claims courts. This is a good example of a case worthy of informal small claims court. One neighbor is obligated to maintain his/her tree and fails (or refuses) to do so. As a result, the other neighbor, incurs expenses (damages) to protect their property from the neighbors refusal to remove a known hazard. The expense is incurred in an attempt to mitigate further damages (if the damaged party) were to refuse to take action. Further, in failing to remove what is now a KNOWN hazard, the neighbor could have a defense in that the damaged party ALLOWED the hazard to remain!!

Looks like you need to buy some more Cracker Jacks.... your old 'law school education' has expired.
 
B

blameshifting

Guest
BelizeBreeze,

Go back and review the original post.

The tree leans at a 45 degree angle.

The top of the tree overhangs OP's property.

The tree is rooted on a section of his neighbor's property.

25 ft of the trunk is on the neighbor's property

The balance OVERHANGS OP's property

See anything in his post that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the base of the tree is anywhere but on the neighbor's property?
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
I have very large oak trees in my back yard that are rooted in a section of my neighbors property that is primarily wooded.
I guess you missed the very first sentence of the post.

Nice try though. :D
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
Whoa, tie a yellow ribbon 'round the ole dangerously overhanging oak tree
It's been three long years
Do ya still want me? (still want me)
If I don't see a ribbon 'round the dangerously overhanging ole oak tree
I'll stay on the bus
Forget about us
Put the blame on me
If I don't see a yellow ribbon 'round the dangerously overhanging ole oak tree


Tony IAAL Orlando and Dawn Dishwashing Liquid Soap
 
B

blameshifting

Guest
JETX said:
You're an idiot!!! And clearly have NO legal concept of small claims courts. This is a good example of a case worthy of informal small claims court. One neighbor is obligated to maintain his/her tree and fails (or refuses) to do so. As a result, the other neighbor, incurs expenses (damages) to protect their property from the neighbors refusal to remove a known hazard. The expense is incurred in an attempt to mitigate further damages (if the damaged party) were to refuse to take action. Further, in failing to remove what is now a KNOWN hazard, the neighbor could have a defense in that the damaged party ALLOWED the hazard to remain!!

Looks like you need to buy some more Cracker Jacks.... your old 'law school education' has expired.
Feel free to spend thousands trimming a tree and THEN attempting to get your neighbor to be held responsible for the costs of your trimming in small claims court.

I'd advise OP to take the case to a regular court and have that court ORDER the neighbor to pay for removing the nuisance.

There are no "further damages" as there are no current "damages".

Go talk to a real lawyer before you start lopping off the tops of your neighbor's trees.
 
B

blameshifting

Guest
BelizeBreeze said:
I guess you missed the very first sentence of the post.

Nice try though. :D
I guess that's a good reason to not stop reading after the first sentence?
 

JETX

Senior Member
blameshifting said:
Feel free to spend thousands trimming a tree and THEN attempting to get your neighbor to be held responsible for the costs of your trimming in small claims court.
The COST incurred is necessary in order to prevent further and more costly damage... whether the OP is successful in recovering any part of the cost in court or not is irrelevant!! Can you really be that naive??? The PRIMARY concern here is to remove the hazard!! Secondary is to try to get someone else to pay for it.

I'd advise OP to take the case to a regular court and have that court ORDER the neighbor to pay for removing the nuisance.
Just when I thought you might have a small amount of intelligence, you say something really stupid and remove all suspicions!!
So, EXACTLY what court do you think would be appropriate to hear this case?? And how long do you think it might take for this case to wind its way to justice in that higher court?? And finally, what would you propose the writer do to protect him/herself during the year or so it might take to get heard??

There are no "further damages" as there are no current "damages".
*** HUH??? Care to try to put that in English for the rest of us???
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top