Who's liable for trimming trees that grow from one propery to another?

[schrodingerscat]

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

The branches from our neighbor's trees are growing into our property and are making a mess when we have to clean up. We would like to get the trees trimmed. Who's liable for trimming the trees? Is it the neighbor, since it's their trees or is it us, since the branches are on our property?

Thank you for your help!

 

[justalayman]

what encroaches onto your property are yours to do with as you wish.

 

[schrodingerscat]

Thank you for the quick reply! Since the tree is located on another property, we would like to ask the neighbor to pay for the expenses of trimming it. This seems like a reasonable request from our end. We wanted to know whether this holds legally. Thank you!

what encroaches onto your property are yours to do with as you wish.

 

[tranquility]

Thank you for the quick reply! Since the tree is located on another property, we would like to ask the neighbor to pay for the expenses of trimming it. This seems like a reasonable request from our end. We wanted to know whether this holds legally. Thank you!

You may request whatever you like. However, they don't have a duty to fulfill your request. Even worse, if you damage the tree while trimming it, you could be liable. If you tell your neighbor the tree is in a dangerous or unsafe condition, he could be liable if the tree causes damages.

 

[CSO286]

Thank you for the quick reply! Since the tree is located on another property, we would like to ask the neighbor to pay for the expenses of trimming it. This seems like a reasonable request from our end. We wanted to know whether this holds legally. Thank you!

Nope, you can ask, but if you want the tree trimmed, you're going to have to do it--or have it done--carefully. If you damage the tree, you could be on the hook for damages.

 

[schrodingerscat]

Thank you, tranquility and CSO286 for your advices!

 

[justalayman]

Thank you, tranquility and CSO286 for your advices!

Um, you're welcome.

 

[tranquility]

Um, you're welcome.

You did rather overstate. While he could do whatever he wants, if that doing caused damages he would be responsible.

 

[justalayman]

You did rather overstate. While he could do whatever he wants, if that doing caused damages he would be responsible.

I answered the OP's specific questions:

The branches from our neighbor's trees are growing into our property and are making a mess when we have to clean up. We would like to get the trees trimmed. Who's liable for trimming the trees? Is it the neighbor, since it's their trees or is it us, since the branches are on our property?

what encroaches onto your property are yours to do with as you wish.

did I not? So, you have to read more into a poster's question and answer that before you are worthy of being thanked? Wow, I wonder if I can find a lawyer that works like that.

Yes esquire, you did answer my question but you offered nothing more therefore I shall not pay you.

 

[tranquility]

No matter how you want to parse words, to not inform the OP he is responsible for any damage to the tree from his trimming is a disservice. Yes, if he asked such a question of an attorney and the attorney did not so advise of the risk, the attorney would be liable for malpractice. To parse words here, no, you could not say you wouldn't pay the attorney. You would be liable under contract. However, you would win more than the fee back in damages if they resulted from the lack of warning of something so basic.

It would be like a person come in and ask, "my neighbor is making a lot of noise, may I shoot him?"

Which is the better answer?

1. "You may do whatever you want."

2. "If you did, you would be liable for both criminal and civil penalties."

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3160216]No matter how you want to parse words, to not inform the OP he is responsible for any damage to the tree from his trimming is a disservice. Yes, if he asked such a question of an attorney and the attorney did not so advise of the risk, the attorney would be liable for malpractice.

so, is it a disservice or malpractice?

To parse words here, no, you could not say you wouldn't pay the attorney.

since you want to play this game; yes, you could say you wouldn't pay the attorney. Advising otherwise would be completely incorrect.

You would be liable under contract.

Ah, but that is a different statement and does not mean the person could not say they weren't going to pay.

However, you would win more than the fee back in damages if they resulted from the lack of warning of something so basic.

doubtful, but I am more than willing to read your proof of my incorrect belief.

It would be like a person come in and ask, "my neighbor is making a lot of noise, may I shoot him?"

Which is the better answer?

1. "You may do whatever you want."

2. "If you did, you would be liable for both criminal and civil penalties."

in your example the question asked does not justify legally shooting the neighbor, at all so it is not even close to being a comparable example. In this thread, the branches do justify the OP trimming them. The possibility of any liability was not part of the question asked and in reality, it not a typical result of trimming the trees. If you want to go with your position, I suppose you should have said that the OP would be liable if any of the trimmings fell onto the the neighbor or his property and caused damage yet you failed to do so.


and it is not a matter of a better answer. Both were correct and both answered the question asked. Your answer did not show mine to be in error in any way.

 

[tranquility]

so, is it a disservice or malpractice?

A disservice here. Malpractice if you were acting as a professional.

since you want to play this game; yes, you could say you wouldn't pay the attorney. Advising otherwise would be completely incorrect.

Absolutely. It would be legally wrong, but you could say it.

Ah, but that is a different statement and does not mean the person could not say they weren't going to pay.

I concur.

doubtful, but I am more than willing to read your proof of my incorrect belief.

OK.

in your example the question asked does not justify legally shooting the neighbor, at all so it is not even close to being a comparable example. In this thread, the branches do justify the OP trimming them. The possibility of any liability was not part of the question asked and in reality, it not a typical result of trimming the trees. If you want to go with your position, I suppose you should have said that the OP would be liable if any of the trimmings fell onto the the neighbor or his property and caused damage yet you failed to do so.

It would be illegal to do whatever the OP wants to the portions on his property if it damaged the tree.

and it is not a matter of a better answer. Both were correct and both answered the question asked. Your answer did not show mine to be in error in any way.

And yet, the OP felt differently. Go figure.

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3160230]A disservice here. Malpractice if you were acting as a professional.

as I said before; more than willing to read support for that claim but while I wait:

using your claim, if I were to ask a lawyer if having a drivers license allowed me to legally drive a car, unless he warned me of the possibility of any liability I may incur due to me driving a vehicle, he would be guilty of malpractice.

If I asked a doctor if taking aspirin would help my headache, unless he warned me that taking aspirin could result in an ulcer or it could cause me to bleed to death if I am cut due to it thinning my blood, he is guilty of malpractice.

If I asked a plumber if a powered drain auger would be the proper tool to clear my drains, unless he warned me that they are dangerous tools and it could result in me breaking my arm or if could damage my pipes, he is guilty of malpractice (or more properly in breach of a fiduciary responsibility)

I could go on and on (and usually do) but that should suffice to show my point.

Absolutely. It would be legally wrong, but you could say it.

actually, it would not be legally wrong or legally correct. It is a simple matter of fact; could they say it or not. It is neither legal or illegal. Now, the actions represented by the statement could be illegal, if actually taken, if there is no justification for refusing to pay but making the statement is not.

OK.

It would be illegal to do whatever the OP wants to the portions on his property if it damaged the tree.

Really? I don't think so. While a person may be liable for resulting damages, it is not illegal to trim the branches. More concisely; it is illegal to damage a tree but it is not illegal to trim a tree.

And yet, the OP felt differently. Go figure.

ingrates, go figure. I suppose you are the kind of guy that yells at a girl scout, that when selling you cookies, sells you a box of Trefoils taking your last [whatever a box costs currently] in cash you had and then tells you they have your favorites, Samoas, because she did't tell you she had a box in her little red wagon and you hadn't seen it and you really really wanted those Samoas.

 

[tranquility]

Please go on with the straw man, perhaps you can find a relevant example. That's because, as to the malpractice, the key is falling below the standard of the profession. Do a quick web search and find a lawyer page that tells that a neighbor can cut the tree in California and that does not also warn of the problem from damaging it. Go ahead, I'll wait**************

Now, while you may have, with diligent effort, found one; how many did you pass that gave the warning? Which would you say is the standard of the profession?

More concisely; it is illegal to damage a tree but it is not illegal to trim a tree.

But, that's not what you said, was it? You said "what encroaches onto your property are yours to do with as you wish". Is that true? Can he do something that willfully damages the tree? (See also California Penal Code Section 384a)

Finally, when that girl scout comes along to sell those cookies and sees a dog on your porch and asks you, "Does your dog bite?" You're the type of person who says, "Nope". Then as she reaches out her hand to pet it, the dog growls and bites her hand hard, making her cry. Through the tears she accuses, "You said he didn't bite!" To which you reply, "Yeah, but that's not my dog."

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3160257]Please go on with the straw man, perhaps you can find a relevant example. That's because, as to the malpractice, the key is falling below the standard of the profession. Do a quick web search and find a lawyer page that tells that a neighbor can cut the tree in California and that does not also warn of the problem from damaging it. Go ahead, I'll wait**************

this is the very first California lawyers website I came to:

http://bayarearealestatelawyers.com/neighbor-issues/get-your-tree-out-of-my-yard-an-overview-of-neighbor%E2%80%99s-rights-relating-to-roots-and-branches/



I quit after one because I found it did not support your statement.

You can stop waiting now

Now, while you may have, with diligent effort, found one; how many did you pass that gave the warning? Which would you say is the standard of the profession?
But, that's not what you said, was it? You said "what encroaches onto your property are yours to do with as you wish". Is that true? Can he do something that willfully damages the tree? (See also California Penal Code Section 384a)

what the heck are you talking about?

Every person who within the State of California willfully or negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portion of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon state or county highway rights-of-way, or who removes leaf mold thereon, except that the provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply to any employee of the state or of any political subdivision thereof engaged in work upon any state, county, or public road or highway while performing work under the supervision of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, and every person who willfully or negligently cuts, destroys, mutilates, or removes any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, or portions of any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or flower, or huckleberry or redwood greens, growing upon public land or upon land not his or her own, or leaf mold on the surface of public land, or upon land not his or her own, without a written permit from the owner of the land signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, and every person who knowingly sells, offers, or exposes for sale, or transports for sale, any tree or shrub, or fern or herb or bulb or cactus or fl

what does that have to do with ANYTHING in this thread?
but yes, of course he CAN do something that willfully damages the tree. Didn't we already address this when you said a person cannot tell a lawyer they aren't going to pay them? Seriously T, you are stuck in a loop.
.

Finally, when that girl scout comes along to sell those cookies and sees a dog on your porch and asks you, "Does your dog bite?" You're the type of person who says, "Nope". Then as she reaches out her hand to pet it, the dog growls and bites her hand hard, making her cry. Through the tears she accuses, "You said he didn't bite!" To which you reply, "Yeah, but that's not my dog."

Not at all. I'm the guy that says: HELL yes he bites. He eats Girls Scouts for dinner so you best take your overpriced cookies the Hell out of here before he decides it's time for dinner.