neighbor cut down my trees...what are my options?

[krispenstpeter]

What you could do about this legally is sue for trespass to land and seek damages for destruction of your trees, and whatever other damage was done.

BRILLIANT!!!! BRAVO! Absolutely Brilliant!

Now, suppose you tell this poster, since both parties operated under the assumption that the property belonged to the offending neighbor, just how to prove that the property, at the time of the 'destruction' was actually KNOWN to belong to the aggrieved party?

 

[еberha14]

BRILLIANT!!!! BRAVO! Absolutely Brilliant!

If you say so...

Now, suppose you tell this poster, since both parties operated under the assumption that the property belonged to the offending neighbor, just how to prove that the property, at the time of the 'destruction' was actually KNOWN to belong to the aggrieved party?

Regarding trespass to land, it does not matter whether or not the offending neighbor knew the property wasn't his at the time.

 

[krispenstpeter]

My wife and I decided that we wanted to put a fence in place to try and minimize the unpleasant view and had our property surveyed.

The mistake, oh brilliant one, was not on the neighbor's part but on BOTH parts. So you tell this poster what is going to happen when they file suite for damages based on their own mistake.

I'll even give you a hint. Oh hell, no I won't.

 

[HomeGuru]

Please ignore the misinformation you've been given by others. What you could do about this legally is sue for trespass to land and seek damages for destruction of your trees, and whatever other damage was done. So, if you are unable to come to an agreement with your neighbor on this matter, my advice would be to consult with an attorney and ask him about suing for trespass to land. Many attorneys give free consultations. Of course, there are other issues to consider before doing this, like creating anymosity.

Good luck.

**A: eberhahaha, what is anymosity? Do you have anybrains?
Do you know anything anyway?

 

[еberha14]

**A: eberhahaha, what is anymosity? Do you have anybrains?
Do you know anything anyway?

What is "anybrains"?

Yes, indeed. Let's start a perpetual cycle of pointing out typos.

 

[еberha14]

The mistake, oh brilliant one, was not on the neighbor's part but on BOTH parts.

No, the act which was a mistake was by the neighbor who entered and cleared land which was not his, and his subsequent use of it. And whether he did this thinking it was his land at the time is quite irrelevant. The very fact that you are ignorant of the fact that these matters are decided on an objective rather than subjective basis proves that you do not even qualify to be considered a legal sciolist, let alone a legal scholar.

So you tell this poster what is going to happen when they file suite for damages based on their own mistake.

They made no mistake. There is no requirement on plaintiff's part to be contemporaneously aware that a trespass to land is occurring. The discovery can occur after the fact and still be considered trespass to land. In this case, since harm was done to the land, including conversion of trees, plaintiff is entitled to be fully compensated for such loss.

I'll even give you a hint. Oh hell, no I won't.

You've already given me that hint many times. No, wait. You and your other nom de plume have already fully exposed yourselves as being completely ignorant of the law on numerous occasions. Have you no shame?

 

[krispenstpeter]

They made no mistake. There is no requirement on plaintiff's part to be contemporaneously aware that a trespass to land is occurring. The discovery can occur after the fact and still be considered trespass to land. In this case, since harm was done to the land, including conversion of trees, plaintiff is entitled to be fully compensated for such loss.

A claim for continuing trespass “must be based on recurring tortious or unlawful conduct, and is not established by the continuation of harm caused by ... terminated tortious or unlawful conduct.” Carpenter v. Texaco, 419 Mass. 581, 583 (1995).

 

[krispenstpeter]

And before you start getting into Equitable Relief:

The general rule in Massachusetts is that an owner of land is entitled to an injunctive relief for an encroachment on his property. See Geragosian v. Union Realty Co., 289 Mass. 104, 108 (1935). See also Peters v. Archimbault, 361 Mass. 91, 92 (1972) (landowner ordinarily entitled to mandatory equitable relief to compel removal of structure significantly encroaching on his land). In certain “exceptional circumstances,” however, equitable relief may be denied, leaving the plaintiff to a remedy of damages. See Strauss v. Oyster River Condominium Trust, 417 Mass. 442, 451 (1994). In determining whether an encroachment must be removed, the court applies a fact-specific analysis. See Goulding v. Cook, 422 Mass. 276, 277-78 (1996).(6)

So MM447, although anyone can sue anyone else over just about anything, I would strongly suggest you take HG's suggestion to write the Cease and Desist letter demanding the neighbor remove the backhoe AND begin negotiations for the cost of either the removed trees themselves, or replacing the trees and correcting any other issues due to their removal such as runoff.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is "anybrains"?

**A: something that you have no connection to.
*********

Yes, indeed. Let's start a perpetual cycle of pointing out typos.

**A: the only thing perpetual with you is being ignorant.

 

[еberha14]

A claim for continuing trespass “must be based on recurring tortious or unlawful conduct, and is not established by the continuation of harm caused by ... terminated tortious or unlawful conduct.” Carpenter v. Texaco, 419 Mass. 581, 583 (1995).

Put simply, in the case of Carpenter v. Texaco, gasoline from defendant's leaky underground tank seeped into the plaintiff's property. At some point, the leaking was stopped in 1984. Seven years later, plaintiff sued for what is known as "continuing trespass" because the gasoline was still on his property and continuing to spread and cause harm even though the leak had been stopped. The court ruled as you state above that "a continuing trespass . . . must be based on recurring tortious or unlawful conduct and is not established by the continuation of harm caused by previous but terminated tortious or unlawful conduct."

And what does this mean (which you CLEARLY do not understand)? And might I point out that this is not even difficult to understand?

The court held that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations.

It means that the clock on the statue of limitations starts ticking as soon as the continuing trespass stops. So, as soon as the leaky underground tank is no longer an issue, causing gas to seep into plaintiff's land (which was found to be in 1984), then the clock on the statute of limitations starts ticking. Now, given that plaintiff did not sue for trespass to land until seven years later, the statute of limitations had expired. The damage which was occurring was the result of previous and terminated tortious conduct. The case of gasoline is an exceptional issue, the court reasoning that the continuing presence of the gasoline in defendant's land should be construed as damage from previous conduct rather than continued trespass from foreign material which did not belong there. Had plaintiff filed suit before the statute of limitations was up, he would have had a successful cause of action for trespass to land.

None of this has absolutely any relevance to this case. There is no issue regarding statute of limitations. Moreover, the defendant is continuing to make use of the land, develop the land, step onto the land, and store his junk there. There is continuing tortious conduct.

I am truly appalled at your gross display of legal ignorance and profound lack of reading comprehension skills. Have you no shame?

How many times do I have to do this to you and your other nom de plume before you give up and leave?

 

[krispenstpeter]

Appalling. Then have the balls to tell this entire forum who you think my "OTHER" non de plume is you jack ass.

 

[frylover]

Krisp, I think I know who he thinks you are besides you! (If that made any sense!)

 

[HomeGuru]

**A: eberhahaha, what is anymosity? Do you have anybrains?
Do you know anything anyway?

**A: nom de plume. Nom de skull. Numbskull.

 

[mm447]

Just an update on the situation for those interested. I talked to my neighbour and he apologized for his unintentional use of my property. He is in the process of moving his stuff off and will plant trees in the area he cleared. It looks like an amicable agreement has been reached and I'd like to thank all who offered advice on the situation.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And both parties are happy, you get new trees and the use of your land back, and neither party has to go through an "iffy" lawsuit.

Sounds like that strange thing called two adults working things out.

Congrats