Dangerous oak tree

[blameshifting]

How to lose thousands in small claims court the JETX way:

OP: Defendant owes me $3700 for the costs I incurred trimming his overhanging tree.

Neighbor: I'm not responsible for trimming the portion of my trees that overhang my OP's property.

OP: But the tree was a nuisance

Neighbor: So you say, if you had a court order declaring the tree a nuisance I would have been happy to remove the tree myself and at my expense.

Neighbor: In the meantime you took it upon yourself to not just trimm my tree but lop off it's top and it's now a dead tree and you owe me $4700 for it's replacement.

Have a nice day JETX, I'll stick with my advice that if OP thinks the tree is a nuisance and wants his neighbor to pay for it's removal he needs to head to court and get a court order.

That's what courts are for, resolving disputes.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

How to lose thousands in small claims court the JETX way:

OP: Defendant owes me $3700 for the costs I incurred trimming his overhanging tree.

Neighbor: I'm not responsible for trimming the portion of my trees that overhang my OP's property.

OP: But the tree was a nuisance

Neighbor: So you say, if you had a court order declaring the tree a nuisance I would have been happy to remove the tree myself and at my expense.

Neighbor: In the meantime you took it upon yourself to not just trimm my tree but lop off it's top and it's now a dead tree and you owe me $4700 for it's replacement.

Have a nice day JETX, I'll stick with my advice that if OP thinks the tree is a nuisance and wants his neighbor to pay for it's removal he needs to head to court and get a court order.

That's what courts are for, resolving disputes.

there's got to be one hell of a joynt somewhere in this story

 

[JETX]

How to lose thousands in small claims court the JETX way:

Since you clearly do NOT understand the law or small claims court and like to create 'imaginary' court scenes, let me give you mine....

OP: "Defendant owes me $3700 for the costs I incurred trimming his overhanging tree."

Defendant: "I'm not responsible for trimming the portion of my trees that overhang my OP's property."

OP: "But you ARE responsible if the tree is known to be dead, diseased or dying. My witness will testify that the tree was "rotted on the interior and dangerous". Further, I present the following photographs, showing that the tree was overhanging my property and was an inherent imminent hazard. Further, I present the following 'demand letter' sent to the defendant by certified mail, explaining the hazard and including a copy of the statement by the tree service as to its condition. By the neighbor refusing to remove the said hazard, I was forced to expend $3700 in removing the hazard before it occured and caused considerable more expensive damage to my home."

Judge to Defendant: "Do you have anything further to say on this matter?"
Defendant (with head held down): "No, your Honor".

Judge: "Judgment is awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $3700 plus costs of court. Next case."

Have a nice day JETX, I'll stick with my advice that if OP thinks the tree is a nuisance and wants his neighbor to pay for it's removal he needs to head to court and get a court order.

Gee, I see that you still haven't answered my questions as to 'what court?', 'how long?" and "what protections in the interim?', huh??? Your silence on these questions tells all we need to know about your 'legal ability'.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Check with your city, there is likely to be some code or ordinance that covers this and if the tree is planted on your neighbors property they are going to have responsibility for it.

Insofar as what the insurance companies are claiming and the new legislation, it is possible that removal and or damage would still be covered under grandfather clauses. These trees were planted before the insurance company was even established and did at the time if securing the policy cover such damage, unless your neighbor only recently obtained the policy since the change in state law, in which case he would still be responsible for the costs and damage. Unless it falls then there are other arguments.

Call the city today and call public works department and check on your city's codes and ordinances, get an inspector out, have handy the tree service report, which will also show that you have been responsible for maintaining your trees, if not request a copy for the inspector, let the city cite your neighbor and he can be responsible for arguing with his insurnace company and the city will enforce for you.

Since the trunk is on your neighbors property, wait until the city tags it with a RED RIBBON before bursting into IAAL's song.

Here is an example of one cities code re dangerous trees and property maintenance:
Section 23.9. Landscaping maintenance requirements.

All owners of land shall be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping. This includes mowing and maintaining abutting rights-of-way, swales, lake and canal banks. Landscaping shall be maintained in a good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance at least equal to the original installation and shall be mowed or trimmed in a manner and at a frequency so as not to detract from the appearance of the general area. Landscaping shall be maintained such that it will not cause property damage and public safety hazards, including removal of living, dead or decaying plant material, removal of low hanging branches below twelve (12) feet above grade and those obstructing street lighting. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the following standards:

(a) Insects, disease, etc.: Landscaping shall be kept free of visible signs of insects and disease and appropriately irrigated and fertilized to enable landscaping to be in a healthy condition.

(b) Mulching: Three (3) inches of clean, weed-free, appropriately sterilized organic mulch shall be maintained over all areas originally mulched at all times until landscaped area matures to one hundred percent (100%) coverage.

(e) Replacement requirements: An owner is responsible to ensure that living material are replaced with like material if such living material or trees die, or are abused.

(f) Removal of root systems: Removal of root systems which show evidence of destroying public or private property is required.

(g) Tree Abuse: Tree abuse is prohibited within the City in accordance with Section 12½ - 16 of the City ofXXXXXX Code of Ordinances.

(h) Tree Pruning:

(1) All owners of land must prune trees in accordance with the National Arborist Association Standards. Any pruning performed without conformance to the National Arborist Association Standards shall be subject to enforcement by the City.

(2) All tree pruners or removers that provide services for a fee within the City of XXXXX shall hold a valid occupational license in either Broward, Palm Beach, or Miami-Dade Counties.

 

[blameshifting]

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.

Again you refer to "further damage". Has OP already been damaged?

If the cost of removing the tree is irrelevant then you need not bothered having posted to this thread at all as OP has already been given informal permission to remove the tree at his own expense.

 

[blameshifting]

Gee, I see that you still haven't answered my questions as to 'what court?', 'how long?" and "what protections in the interim?', huh??? Your silence on these questions tells all we need to know about your 'legal ability'.

OP should contact a local attorney about filing a lawsuit. He hasn't asked me to direct him in filing a lawsuit and I wouldn't do so if asked.

As to how long a lawsuit would take. As long as it takes.

As to what protections in the interim. OP is entitled to trimm any overhanging branches as long as he doesn't kill the tree. Such trimming is done at OP's expense.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

OP is entitled to trimm any overhanging branches as long as he doesn't kill the tree. QUOTE]


This is getting curiouser and curiouser by the minute (said alice to the Hare).

I wonder if this falls under the 'it's allows as long as you don't kill it' statute.

 

[JETX]

OP should contact a local attorney about filing a lawsuit. He hasn't asked me to direct him in filing a lawsuit and I wouldn't do so if asked.

Not true. And since you seem to suffer from 'short-term memory loss', let me provide some help for you....... from YOUR posts:
"he needs to take his neighbor to court (not small claims court),"
and
"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. "
and
"he needs to head to court and get a court order."

So, my questions STILL stand and we are waiting for your wonderful insight:
1) EXACTLY what court do you think would be appropriate to hear this case??

2) And how long do you think it might take for this case to wind its way to justice in that higher court??

3) And finally, what would you propose the writer do to protect him/herself during the year or so it might take to get heard??

You've already shown all of us that you lack ANY actual legal knowledge or experience.... and your inability or refusal to answer these simple questions as to YOUR recommendations is just proving that.

 

[JETX]

Again you refer to "further damage". Has OP already been damaged?

And again you are showing your legal naivete!! The reference to 'further damage' was to show that the costs incurred were NECESSARY to mitigate the likelihood of further and more expensive damage if the OP were NOT to remove the hazard!!

If the cost of removing the tree is irrelevant then you need not bothered having posted to this thread at all as OP has already been given informal permission to remove the tree at his own expense.

HUH??? Care to try to put that into some language that the rest of us can understand??

 

[blameshifting]

And again you are showing your legal naivete!! The reference to 'further damage' was to show that the costs incurred were NECESSARY to mitigate the likelihood of further and more expensive damage if the OP were NOT to remove the hazard!!

"further and more expensive damage"

There is no FURTHER damage unless some damage has already occurred.

Perhaps you meant POTENTIAL damage?

If the cost of removing the tree is irrelevant then you need not bothered having posted to this thread at all as OP has already been given informal permission to remove the tree at his own expense.

HUH??? Care to try to put that into some language that the rest of us can understand??

It's in English, what language would you like? Here it is in Spanish.

Si el coste de quitar el árbol es inaplicable entonces usted no necesita la fijación incomodada a este hilo de rosca en todos como DE OP. SYS. se ha dado ya el permiso informal de quitar el árbol en su propio costo.

 

[JETX]

It's in English, what language would you like? Here it is in Spanish.

Cute. But I see that you STILL haven't answered the following questions:

1) EXACTLY what court do you think would be appropriate to hear this case??

2) And how long do you think it might take for this case to wind its way to justice in that higher court??

3) And finally, what would you propose the writer do to protect him/herself during the year or so it might take to get heard??

And why do your posts seem to be filled with ignorant responses yet, you seem unable to answer very simple questions that arise from YOUR own posts???

 

[JETX]

Cute. But I see that you STILL haven't answered the following questions:

1) EXACTLY what court do you think would be appropriate to hear this case??

2) And how long do you think it might take for this case to wind its way to justice in that higher court??

3) And finally, what would you propose the writer do to protect him/herself during the year or so it might take to get heard??

And why do your posts seem to be filled with ignorant responses yet, you seem unable to answer very simple questions that arise from YOUR own posts???

Still waiting for a response from this brainshifting idiot......

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Have a Molson on me. It's going to be awhile.

 

[blameshifting]

Have a Molson on me. It's going to be awhile.

You couldn't figure out where the tree is and now you can't figure out where I answered JETX?

The tree is still on the neighbor's property, despite your initial incorrect belief that it was on the OP's property, and I answered JETX in post #21, long ago.

 

[florida oaks]

Thanks for your input.

PS tree is on my neighbor's property, but most of the top overhangs my property line. Insurance agent informs me that if you stand on your boundary line and look up, the portion within your boundarie's "airspace" belongs to you, thats why I included the dimensions.