Neighbor's Tree Trimming Endangering My House

[oldtrader]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

I suggest you go back and re-read the post. It did not say this ^^^^.

The neighbor, through is unilateral actions, has exposed the OP to a risk which did not exist before. That is negligence. The OP could pursue this legally, but ultimately it will probably cost less to just remove the tree. It is unfortunate the neighbor did not cooperate in that regard to begin with.

You are wrong. It is not negligence on the neighbors part. The neighbor had an immediate need to take out that sub trunk. The neighbor tried to work something out and they go together to take out the tree and end the problem. The OP rejected doing so, saying he could not afford it, and left it all on the neighbor to solve his own problem, in full knowledge the OP had to take out that sub trunk by either cutting it off, or by the two going together and taking out the whole tree..

The neighbor did what had to be done to protect his own property, and removed the problem part of the tree, the OP had been told had to go.

The negligent one was the OP not the neighbor. The OP knew that the neighbor had to remove the sub trunk for the safety of his own home. The OP knowing the potential danger to his home, refused to cooperate with the neighbor and take the whole tree out. He left it to the neighbor to solve the problem caused by the sub trunk, knowing if just the sub trunk was taken out, it would possibly place his home at risk. The OP now has the problem he created by not cooperating with the neighbor and taking out the tree.

Any negligence in this situation, is on the part of the OP putting the neighbor in the position of having to cut off the sub trunk, without the whole tree being taken out.

Before I went into the real estate business, I took one year of classes at a major university, on real estate. A couple of them were real estate law. The type of situation here, was discussed thoroughly. We were taught that the negligence factor in such a situation, shifts from the neighbor to the OP once the neighbor brought it to the attention of the OP, and the OP declined to cooperate on taking out the tree, and forcing the neighbor to just take out the sub trunk endangering his own home.

Sue the neighbor for negligence, would be the easiest thing there is to beat on the neighbors part, and the OP could be ordered to pay the attorney's on both side and the court costs for bringing a frivolous lawsuit to the court and wasting their time. If he thinks a $4,000 charge split in half to take out the tree is too much, such a suite could cost him, several times that amount.

[wsamon]

wow. Lots more replies than I ever expected. I stepped away for a few days but I'll try to respond as best I can.

First, one overarching thing seems to be that in all the explanations I wrote there is some confusion over a few key points.

1) I'm pretty sure the tree is owned roughly 50/50. It is difficult to tell exactly where the boundary lies.
2) The neighbor only removed stuff that I expect is on his property. It is roughly 1/3 of the tree in my estimation, but I will post some before & after pictures for clarity.
3) I never said "No, I will not split the bill." I said "it will be difficult for me, but get me the quote and I will try to make it work"
4) I did not expect the neighbor to pay for the entire removal.
5) I did expect the neighbor to provide me with the quote to remove the tree from whatever company(s) he was considering using and the opportunity to pay half of having it removed entirely. He did not do so.

The only quote I received was from the company he had already decided not to use, and that was only because I sought him out. He gave no indication of the intent of getting further quotes, and I thought my going out of my way to discuss the quote with him after making original comment about having interest and getting me the quote so I could try to work something out made it obvious enough that I was interested in splitting the bill for removal. Apparently, as this thread shows, that was a bad assumption.

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Apparently you were hoping, he would remove the tree and pay for it to be taken out. You were not able/willing to pay half. He now had a problem, what to do. As he had to do something, he pruned away the part of the tree causing the problem. Now you are the one with the problem, and end up with the probable final solution, is to have to pay for it to be taken out.

To the best of my knowledge, he removed way more than his insurance company required. I believe they specified one fairly low branch that needed to come down, he took out an entire section of the tree.

I was not expecting him to pay for the whole thing and I clearly am not a lawyer. However, I would expect that if there is a hazard to one's house and 2 options to remove said hazard, with the first clearly endangering the neighbor's house, one would be obligated to take option 2 even if it's more costly.

Originally Posted by kitty61

Had a similar situation that did not get resolved. The owner of the property I rented hired an arborist for their opinion and he guessed the tree was strong and nothing needed to be done.
So I did make sure my house insurance clearly covered that type of damage.
Googled for similar situations.
Suggest:
- you get a second opinion from another arborist.
- go to city hall and check city bylaws
- get an opinion at your local university about dendrology (study of woody plants)

Thank you for this advice. I will look into this. I'm not sure what I'm asking about at the university though. They wouldn't actually send someone out to look at the tree and give me an opinion on the situation would they?

Originally Posted by gregir

Going through something similar.
Made the mistake of asking if the insurance company would pay to remove a hazardous tree.
Answer was no and now that you have notified us we are notifying you that it is your responsibility to mitigate any known hazards.
I read that as implying they may not cover any damages resulting from the known hazard I failed to mitigate.

From your insurers point of view I doubt they care about your neighbors actions unless they are clearly negligent.
You may or may not have a case against your neighbor but from my experience that would be on your dollars to pursue and is iffy at best for any kind of recovery. The facts indicate you were made aware of the hazard regardless of the messaging or means of notification.

Yeah, that's why I don't want to bring the insurance company into this. I don't expect they'd care either, and while I want to resolve this situation quickly, I'd rather not be given an arbitrary deadline with a tight window.

I was made aware of the potential for a hazard should my neighbor pursue a particular course of action. However, it was not currently a threat as it stood. It was my neighbor's desire to trim part of the tree and expose a weakened tree to the wind that created the problem.

Originally Posted by SmartMoney

I have a question for the OP, if the cost was even half of the estimate to take the tree down, would you have moved forward? I'm guessing no, only because you are giving the impression you would not spend anything at this point...

I'm shocked, living in Florida you should be well aware of storm damage potential.

Split a $2000 cost, where I pay $1000? Heck yeah I'd have done that. Even at the $4000 cost I'd have probably gone in on it if there was no option and it was the best price of several quotes. I simply couldn't write a check that day out of the blue for something I had no idea was needed after having just gone through a costly high-risk pregnancy & birth of my second son, and the neighbor showed no interest in pursuing that contractor's services anyway.

I'm well aware of the issue. Hence my concern about the situation.

Originally Posted by spiritedaway

Your neighbor did all the right things. He made you aware of the issue and did the legwork (got an initial quote). You declined due to your current financial situations. Meanwhile, he also has to meet his own obligation (insurance) to protect his property. Since you made no offer, he trimmed his side of the property. All within his legal and property rights to do so.

If you thought the quote was high, you could have also done some quote shopping yourself (and exclude some things, like removing the stump, or trimming all the high branches) to get a lower price and see if it works for both for you. It may be a courtesy but your neighbor isn't obliged to inform you what he's planning to do once you declined and made no other offers, as long as what he did is reasonable. Trimming on one's property is routine. Seemed he did just that.

FWIW, we had a similar situation not too long ago. We informed the neighbor with a quote. They came back with a better quote and we agreed. Granted, we'd prefer not to have to pay to remove a tree, but sometimes, safety overrides costs. It wouldn't sit well with me if I knew the tree is unhealthy and we didn't do a thing, and it ended up falling and injuring someone, or worse, killing someone.

For us, it helped with the the cost that we didn't remove the whole tree. We left the tree to a certain height and of course the stump there. Just something you can consider.

Surveying isn't going to do you much good. If it's a border tree, you both own it. So you'd be responsible for your side, unless you think the tree is fully your neighbor's? I would save those couple of hundred bucks for surveying and put it towards saving for the tree removal. Budget for it ASAP, and best of luck!

If anything the tree trunk is more likely to be fully mine than it is fully the neighbors. Again, I didn't say "I won't do it" I said "get me the quote and we'll try". He never got me a usable quote to discuss. What's the point of discussing how to pay a quote from a company you already know isn't being used?

Where I definitely fell short is in not pursuing quotes of my own. I was expecting him to give me at least one valid quote, or pursue a different insurance company. This is no excuse, but I had other things going on and was relying on him to do the legwork since he was the one with the immediate need.

Originally Posted by veuvegirl

I would have a couple of tree companies come and give you a quote. I would also have them look at what the other tree company did. If the other tree company removed too much of the tree creating a hazard you may be able to go after them for the money.

That said, figure out a way to remove it. I can't tell you how many friends have had trees fall on their house causing hundreds of thousands dollars damage. It's too big of risk to not do anything.

Yeah, I'm definitely going to do that. It occurred to me the other day that I have 2 acquaintances that run landscaping companies and may be able to give me a reasonable quote and advice about the situation.

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

The law of negligence means that if you knowingly expose someone to risk, than you are liable for damages if something happens, even if that something is an "act of god" (like the wind blowing down the tree). The first contractor told the neighbor of the risk of unbalancing the tree, but the neighbor cut it anyway. He has exposed himself to negligence. He did not have "every legal right to protect his property". His right was limited by the risk he created for you.

The question now is what to do about it. You are pretty much forced to have it removed at this point. Your neighbor kind of screwed you by cutting his half of the tree which was no doubt cheaper than splitting the cost of total removal. You could probably litigate it and get him to pay some money since he negligently created a costly situation. Or you could just eat the cost and pay the $4k your self.

That's how I feel as far as the law of negligence, but how I feel and how things work aren't necessarily the same, and I honestly have no desire to pursue a lawsuit against my neighbor. However, I also don't like the idea of setting a precedent that he can do whatever he wants without regard for my family and property and not encounter any resistance.

Originally Posted by IDtheftV

National Bureau of Economic Research: Financially Fragile Households. From the abstract: This paper examines households’ financial fragility by looking at their capacity to come up with $2,000 in 30 days.

From the abstract: This paper examines households’ financial fragility by looking at their capacity to come up with $2,000 in 30 days.

I don't even own a house any more, but getting one's panties all in a wad over $4k sounds like someone is in a *Too Big* house or is driving brand new cars that are not needed or ....

The idea that a strong storm could cause a catastrophe over a measly $4k is crazy. Take out a cash advance and suck it up. It's part of homeownership.

Raising $2000 in 30 days isn't much of an issue, though a lot of it may effectively go on credit cards if I want to keep the emergency cash on hand.

As far as the finances go, I don't need to debate them with you, but we own our cars outright, and the newest is a 2007 Impala. Hardly a high end luxury vehicle. We're at a "weak point" financially right now. Among other things, in the past 3 years we've moved across the country, bought an entire home's worth of furniture, paid for my wife's school, gotten engaged, married, bought a house, had 2 kids, a partial roof replacement (unexpected at the time based on initial home inspection), a pool resurfacing, and a $3000 pest removal. The pregnancies were very hard on my wife and kept her from working for the majority of the past 2 years - something we were not expecting - and led to many more medical expenses. My second son just arrived in February along with some nice medical bills.

This is in no way a "woe is me" scenario. We chose to do many of these things, and others are just things that happen in life. Overall I've been very blessed. My point is simply that while I'm used to having 10s of thousands sitting in my accounts, that has all been wiped out in the last couple years. We're in a stage where we are rebuilding that and paying off our debts.

Originally Posted by tnff

Here's a question though. Does the OP even have the right to remove the whole tree since it's at least half on the neighbors property? Seems like at this point there's still at least an agreement and cost split that will have to take place to remove it. The neighbor may have forced the issue, but the OP should no more be paying for, nor removing the neighbor's half than the neighbor removing his.


If you can't locate the pins, spend the $200 for a survey that actually shows where the tree is in relation to the property line. Maybe it's 50/50. Maybe it's all on the neighbor's side. Maybe the neighbor destroyed your tree. You're going to need that survey anyway later when the neighbor wants something else.

That's actually a very good point that I hadn't thought of. Being as how trimming stuff on my side is now impossible without creating a disaster, what happens if the neighbor won't agree to cutting the tree down even if I pay for it? Though I suppose he already cut down virtually everything on his side anyway.

Originally Posted by oldtrader

You are wrong. It is not negligence on the neighbors part. The neighbor had an immediate need to take out that sub trunk. The neighbor tried to work something out and they go together to take out the tree and end the problem. The OP rejected doing so, saying he could not afford it, and left it all on the neighbor to solve his own problem, in full knowledge the OP had to take out that sub trunk by either cutting it off, or by the two going together and taking out the whole tree..

The neighbor did what had to be done to protect his own property, and removed the problem part of the tree, the OP had been told had to go.

The negligent one was the OP not the neighbor. The OP knew that the neighbor had to remove the sub trunk for the safety of his own home. The OP knowing the potential danger to his home, refused to cooperate with the neighbor and take the whole tree out. He left it to the neighbor to solve the problem caused by the sub trunk, knowing if just the sub trunk was taken out, it would possibly place his home at risk. The OP now has the problem he created by not cooperating with the neighbor and taking out the tree.

Any negligence in this situation, is on the part of the OP putting the neighbor in the position of having to cut off the sub trunk, without the whole tree being taken out.

Before I went into the real estate business, I took one year of classes at a major university, on real estate. A couple of them were real estate law. The type of situation here, was discussed thoroughly. We were taught that the negligence factor in such a situation, shifts from the neighbor to the OP once the neighbor brought it to the attention of the OP, and the OP declined to cooperate on taking out the tree, and forcing the neighbor to just take out the sub trunk endangering his own home.

Sue the neighbor for negligence, would be the easiest thing there is to beat on the neighbors part, and the OP could be ordered to pay the attorney's on both side and the court costs for bringing a frivolous lawsuit to the court and wasting their time. If he thinks a $4,000 charge split in half to take out the tree is too much, such a suite could cost him, several times that amount.

While I admit to not having studied this law and it's possible I could be considered legally negligent; to be clear, the neighbor's immediate need was to take out a branch, not the whole sub trunk. And again, I never said no. Saying something is difficult is not the same as saying I won't do it.

The other part to this debate that I don't quite get is that while mortgages require home insurance, having home insurance (or even a mortgage) is not a legal requirement (beyond the mortgage contract). Nor is staying with the same insurance company that you used the previous year. Additionally, neither my insurance company (who did a visual inspection) nor the company that insured the previous owner of my neighbor's home required any modifications to the tree. The contractor also said that if left alone the tree is still OK for at least a few years. So staying with the insurance company that requires the modification that endangers my house is entirely his choice. It seems to me unreasonable to expect me to finance his choice or be considered "negligent". I wouldn't expect him to come up with $x thousand on the spot if I switched insurance carriers and they wanted a modification that endangered his home.

[JONOV]

Just a thought...If your insurance company doesn't say anything about the branches over your house, don't worry too much. If they think its his negligence AND something then happens, they'll go after your neighbor and his insurance company.

[oldtrader]

Note in every state, the party next door with a co-owned or one only on the neighbors property can cut limbs and branches that are over the line. The neighbor cutting what was on his side over the line, has legal right to cut off the parts he did cut off.

Neighbor Disputes: Trees - FindLaw

[wsamon]

Originally Posted by JONOV

Just a thought...If your insurance company doesn't say anything about the branches over your house, don't worry too much. If they think its his negligence AND something then happens, they'll go after your neighbor and his insurance company.

lol and in the meantime I still have a tree fall on my home possibly endangering my infant son or toddler... and if they decide it is negligence on my part then I'm out 10s of thousands of dollars.

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Note in every state, the party next door with a co-owned or one only on the neighbors property can cut limbs and branches that are over the line. The neighbor cutting what was on his side over the line, has legal right to cut off the parts he did cut off.

Neighbor Disputes: Trees - FindLaw

Well, it's going to be interesting, so I'll update when everything is said and done. Someone gave me a quote for $2500 to remove that tree, another tree, and grind them both down, so I'm going to do that. It turns out that where I live requires a permit to remove more than 30% of a tree. My contractor thinks that the neighbor is going to end up getting fined by the city when the inspector comes out to give us the permit and sees the situation. He doesn't think there's any way the city would have permitted what was done due to the danger it posed to my house.

[JanND]

[quote=wsamon;47906388]Just to clear a few things up: my home is not yet damaged, just at greater risk and they neither removed any roots nor cut the tree in half. That part was a hypothetical asking where the line is drawn about what you can do with your property that impacts the safety of your neighbor. Can you dig a drainage ditch in your yard that protects your home but floods your neighbor's? Can you setup a high voltage electric fence on the edge of your property next to an unfenced neighbor that has kids that could run up and touch it? There's got to be lines somewhere.


I do know the company he used. I could contact them, but I'm not sure to what affect. They'll obviously deny any wrong doing and claim that it in no way destabilizes the tree or endangers my property. For that matter, how do I even determine if the original company was telling the truth or just trying to get more $ by having us both go in for a $4k job instead of a $1500 one?


The first guy quoted $4k for the whole tree. I'm guessing it will be slightly less now since 1/3 of it is gone, including a part that hung over someone's house, so there is less work to do. Simply trimming my side is not an option since that would leave an unprotected trunk.


Yep... Though strangely my insurance company didn't seem concerned one bit about the tree in the first place even with large branches hanging over both my roof and our cars at the time (we've since trimmed the ones hanging over our cars). I don't know if it's visibly bad enough to cause alarm. It basically had 3 main sub trunks - 1 over my neighbor's house, 1 over mine, and 1 toward the street. The one over my neighbor's house is essentially gone. The tree looks lopsided but not on the verge of falling. However, considering what the contractor said and that most of the weight is now toward my property, that's why I'm concerned.


I honestly don't know. It's worth a shot I suppose. The water meters are right at the base of the trunk, though I don't know why they'd care about stuff happening above ground, and there's a street light that one of the big remaining branches leans over. If I were them I'd be concerned about the tree, or at least the branch, falling on the street light. However, could they just serve me a notice that I have to have it removed?


While somewhat true, to be accurate: when we were talking to the contractor, I told them both I was interested but didn't have much money at the time because of all the life events that had just happened. I asked the neighbor to let me know the quote when he got it and we'd see if we could work something out. He didn't tell me until I asked him about it a week or so later, which is when he told me the $4k+. And it's true that I couldn't write a $2k+ check at the time, but he had already decided that was too much and left me with the impression he was going to look into different insurance or at least a cheaper rate to cut it down. I didn't hear from him again and then the company showed up the other day and started cutting.

No one asked for permission to cut it down. I certainly would have given that and had expressed interest in having it removed when we were talking with the contractor. I simply couldn't afford an even split of the amount the neighbor was quoted.

You obviously convinced him that he was on his own in getting this tree done asap. I wouldn't have contacted you again either.

As for how much of the tree is on his property vs mine, I really don't know. The property line is really vague due to the 3+ ft gap between our fences which runs right through the heart of the tree. I just bought the property 2 years ago and he bought his last year, so we don't have much history to go on.
It sounds to me as though there is a utility easement between your homes, and the tree sits in that easement. I certainly would contact your city and get them to remove the tree.

Unfortunately, I don't have $4k laying around. If absolutely necessary, I could maybe scrounge it up selling some stocks and completely emptying our savings, but then we'd really be in danger if an accident of any kind happened, I got laid off, etc..

I feel he had a moral obligation to inform me. I certainly would have informed him and asked if he'd prefer to chip in $x to have it totally removed. Whether or not he had a legal obligation though, I'm not sure. Is there even such a concept from a legal standpoint?

He did inform you. You said that you told him you didn't have the funds. His insurance was due to be cancelled, he did what he had too and got a cheaper company. You and he both were told the tree was dying, and needed to be removed. It sounds like they tried to leave some weight for stability, you mentioned they left trunks.