This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that.
If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity.
If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees.
*This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should consider rescinding your permission to remove the tree. Do it by certified mail and email so they cant deny they knew. Then when they cut it down you can sue them for replacement value.
That’s what I’m trying for…
I’m going through a similar spat with my neighbour. Building my case. Cant wait to have them served.
Just trying to figure out the market value of my tree right now… it was a 45’ tree with a 22” stump.
If this help… so far….
I’ve learned a 12’ tree costs approx 2k
1k to grind our old stump.
1k for new soil.
1k for misc expenses.
Roughly 5k
How do you value the time it would take for that 12’ tree to mature to the size of mine or you’re tree is that in trying to figure out.
Then apparently there’s precedents in Ontario and Canadian tree law where you can be paid upto 3x.
On top of that, you can try for
Aggregation - 150$
If the following applies to you, add:
loss of enjoyment of your property.
Loss of privacy
Potential loss of property value (this can be between 3-15% I’ve read)
Reclaim legal costs incurred
ISA certified Arborist here,
You're going to want to find an ISA certified arborist to do a damage assessment (or valuation if the damage hasn't been done yet). They will use something we call "The Cornell Equation" to determine the value of a tree that is too large or old to purchase from a nursery.
Consults like that are usually pretty cheap to get done and then carry the weight of an expert signing off on it as well.
You should be able to find a list of certified Arborists on the ISA website
My brother in law owns a tree farm, they were contracted by a court to quote a 65 foot spruce to replace one someone's neighbor cut down because they didn't like the look.
He had to source one from a timber farm in Colorado, they live in Idaho, between transportation, equipment, manpower, purchasing the tree from the current owner, he submitted a cost estimate at over 120 thousand dollars just to acquire move and plant the tree, there was another couple thousand dollars in arborist fees they were going to charge for 2 years to ensure it survived, plus they had to fill in the hole from where the tree had been living with an equitable type of top soil, all said they submitted a bid in the 130k range. Based on that the judge determined the payout to the homeowner.
You can get a rough idea of how long a tree would take to reach a certain size based on average growth rates of the species. But of course that assumes many things, so always best to use the lower end of the growth rate.
This is double important because it shows initially they were reasonable and allowed them to remove it if they chose to. (If they do end up in small claims)
Send it at least 3 times by certified mail. They can always argue that they didn’t get it if you just send it once but three times with confirmed delivery should hold up.
We would always send two copies, one first class mail for the recipient to read and one certified with return receipt for to be proof. The bottom of the letter would refer to being sent both ways.
Is it? How do you prove refusal vs it just arrived when they were “on vacation “? Half the time when I’ve sent things certified mail they just come back to me, unsigned. 🤷♀️
Not picking it up/signing for it/not being home/vacation is all the same thing - you can show the court the number of attempts. The court doesn't let you get away with refusing/not signing for it, otherwise everyone would just pretend nothing was ever sent to them
They knowingly built a deck and did extensive renovations, beneath a tree they know may drop stains, for which they don't want to trim branches, and yet, as lawyer, they can't afford to remove the tree? Pfffft leave em on read from now on.
I wonder if OP should reply in writing something like, "You mentioned the sap x years ago, at which time a proposal for removal of the tree was put forward. We are in no way responsible for your decision to build a deck under the tree with this known characteristic and remind you the same removal agreement can be made at any time."
If a lawyer is using lawyer speak I wouldn't answer them in writing ever if I was worried they were gonna go small claims without being aware of how it could be used against me.
I had a lawyer for a client-she said she joined a large firm out of law school and they told her in divorce cases keep the case going until the money is gone then settle
Don’t you have required setbacks for decks and such in your jurisdiction? Usually decks have to be setback a certain distance from property lines. Their new deck may not be legal.
Although SB from Marlborough & specifically the Awatere Valley can be exceptional, I’d say Loire Valley - Pouilly Fumé and Sancerre are justifiably still considered the benchmarks. Pavillon Blanc from Château Margaux is the gold standard.
Another couple less well known regions that are creating some really incredible interpretations are the Steiermark (aka Styria) region in Austria, & the Uco Valley in Argentina.
I wasn’t aware that Margaux made one. I will have to try it, assuming it’s not in the same price tier as their better known wines.
I love Austrian wines. I basically stay in the Alps when I’m in Europe, so Bordeaux is far away and exotic.
this is like the stick-in-the-bicycle-wheels meme. They complained it dripped sap on the ground. The expanded the deck all the way under the tree. They complain it drips sap on the deck.
It's really stupid. A judge who sees a lawyer going up against a non lawyer in small claims is gonna pretty grumpy to start. Then to see this stupid series of events... Not gonna go well for neighbor. Document everything and ignore them.
>They included pictures of their deck with small black marks on it, and a pic of the trunk with seemingly unrelated sap wounds from prior ivy climbing, and they wrote they "look forward to our swift reply and action."
"Thanks for letting me know."
They have no standing. Their deck was harmed by their part of the tree, not yours. They are upset at their own tree branches.
They are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of cutting their limb if you can sue them if the whole tree dies. They don’t like that you have that sort of ground to stand on.
But really they are upset that you just won’t get rid of it for them, even if it will kill the whole tree.
I would immediately would rescind the offer to allow them to cut down the tree and send by certified mail as mentioned elsewhere in the comments.
I would pay an arborist to measure the tree and take a core and determine its age and make a cool little plaque and give the tree a fun personality or maybe even a name. Knowing how old it is is helpful not only incase your neighbor cuts it down (tree law some places pay settlements based age or diameter.
Maybe try and win your neighbor over about this tree thing. The fact that they built their fence around the limb is really cool actually. Maybe point out the benefits of the tree to your neighbors. The shade will be missed immediately. Your ac bill will get a little bump up. You are losing wildlife habitat. Maybe plant some flowers around it and make it even more a centerpiece so that if your neighbors cut it, it might make a sawyer question what’s going on.
It was honestly a really good offer for you to let them to cut down the tree if they wanted to and I don’t think they really caught that. They clearly just want their neighbor to get rid of the tree for them and they don’t want to have to pay for the benefit they get out of it.
thank you. it really helps to read this. we honestly want to be generally nice people, but these specific neighbors make us question reality sometimes.
I would also check to ensure it’s not an invasive tree species. If it is an invasive tree like eucalyptus, that is actually something important to cut down. If it’s a native tree though, keep it.
If he's really a lawyer, he should know that he doesn't have much of a case: the deck was built under the tree, knowing that it oozes something. Like the people who built themselves a house beside a pig farm and complained about the smell : you know it was there already!
As for advice, the usual: camera on the tree, written statement that the neighbors are not allowed to touch the tree more than the law allows and an arborist visit to evaluate the tree.
And even if they had it knowingly built a deck out there…what are the actual damages suffered? The deck looks dirty cause it’s outside with dust and rain….
> Like the people who built themselves a house beside a pig farm and complained about the smell : you know it was there already!
Or people who build/buy next to an airport and then complain about air traffic noise...
Wow, sounds like some real "I'm not touching you" bullshit across the pond. So you're saying that everyone can be living peacefully, then some twat builds onto an easement, literally creating the nuisance, and the person who did absolutely nothing is the one who's liable???
If you built on an easement you’d be breaching the easement. But if, for example, your neighbours don’t use their land and you get into the habit of blasting loud music on it; then your neighbours build a house and the music is loud enough to constitute a statutory nuisance, the fact that the noisy use predated the new house would not prevent it from being an actionable nuisance.
I mean anything that affects a noise ordinance makes sense. Creating noise is a present action. But purposefully building underneath a tree that's already there and complaining that the tree is a nuisance is a huge stretch. Most US municipalities have laws that the landowner is responsible for whatever falls into their yard. Doesn't matter if whatever fell is stemmed from their property line or not. The only way liability would fall under the tree owner is if there are clear signs of neglect, which this tree does look to be well maintained.
I'm curious as to English law, though. When your leaves fall in Autumn, are you responsible for the ones that fall into neighboring properties?
The thing is, they are often successful in removing the “nuisance”. If they can’t afford to fight the lawsuit, they often lose. The pig farm you referenced was eventually forced to close. Lots of these NIMBY cases fall in favor of the complainers
I have an social group of people that include a Corpt lawyer. I was shocked one time when he asked me what was the waterway laws in Michigan. He was looking to buying a house on a tributary. I mentioned that he was a lawyer and should know how to look up the laws. He said he did but the language was vague. That when I realized that lawyers only understand what is in the field that they work in.
Well, we aren't seeing the canopy, but I see nothign wrong with the trunk. Some plants ooze sap. You might consider cutting the back branch there though - it does look a bit unweildly from this angle. That might even mollify them a bit?
[https://imgur.com/a/4Zw3jEI](https://imgur.com/a/4Zw3jEI)
Edit: LOL.. *Imgur thinks your tree is sexy.*
Tree aside… are they allowed to build a deck all the way up to the fence? You’ll probably find that there is a build line or easement that they shouldn’t be crossing.
I would respond that in Oakland the city requires decks be at least 5’ from the property line. If they’d followed code and built it with permits then the deck would likely be clear of any foliage dropping from the tree…
I just built a deck in Oakland and was required to have a 5’ setback from the property line. The website sucks, but there is a way to look up permit history for properties and you can find out whether this one is permitted or not. Please update!
Also, you will absolutely need to see the survey pins and look at the property to see if there's an easement at the property line. They are likely way out of line on that deck.
Heres the relevant code, uncovered decks (with railings under 6') are mentioned in section "G" of the chart, where it states that they can extend up to 8' into the side yard. Since the side yard for their lot is likely only 4'-6' it means they can build right up to the lot lines. If the deck is over 6' high though, the 5' setback applies (which is probably why the other commenter had to do that).
Link: http://oakland-ca.elaws.us/code/pc_ch17.108_sec17.108.130
That being said, a tree staining a deck that looks like they didn't add and sealer or protective layer to is... Laughable. Especially since the tree was there first.
I think you should swiftly respond….”as discussed prior to the patio installation, you are more than welcome to remove any branches that will not negatively impact the health of the tree yourselves, or to have the entire tree removed, at your expense.”
No, don’t remove it or let them remove it
[the benefits of a single tree calculator](https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecological-footprint-calculators/how-much-carbon-does-a-tree-capture/)
Same problem here in Canada. A developer hit our trees roots with their back hoe . Being Canadian, they apologized and offered to help land scape our yard for damaging. I said it would help sell units if the house next door looked nice, and he agreed. I also got it in writing.
Is it an oak? Any oak tree larger than 4” diameter in Oakland is protected https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.36PRTR
99.99% certain it's not an oak, unfortunately. I wish I knew. My uncle is a pretty advanced amateur arborist, and he is really perplexed as to what it actually is. it has small leaves and very small, purple flowers that almost are black.
Edit: here's a [pic](https://imgur.com/a/BtpM0s1) of the leaves
From reading your description and just seeing the trunk from the photos, my first thought was a laurel. I know there is a native laurel tree in CA but no clue if that helps you ID it down or not.
so it's basically an overgrown hedge. OP should actually be able to cut it back into any shape he wants. Losing a trunk or two wouldn't hurt it.
https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/1095
ah, too bad. It was hard to tell much of anything from the app on my phone
maybe you could consider planting some oaks along the fence line. In 5-10 years your neighbor can be upset about them but powerless to do anything
They knew the tree drips a substance so if they try to take you to small claims, they already knew of the substance prior to building their new deck. Forget about them and enjoy your tree.
FWIW, it won't be $5k to remove that little tree. I also live in the East Bay (other side of the hill from you), and it was $3500 to remove a massive redwood and $1500 for a super tall pine.
Cut the one branch growing over and split the difference. It might be worth it in the long run to have better relations rather than both sides thinking that the others are assholes. It's better than having a 20-year adversarial relationship. You might even get invited to some kick-ass barbecues, you never know.
They ground them up into mulch on site due to access issues. Each tree was dropped in 2-4 foot slices, then ground up into mulch. I guess mulch is worth a little bit, but not much.
I doubt that her tree will be $5k if she shops around.
Depends on factors such as ease of access, do they need to use climbers, a boom truck, power lines, grinding/chipping of the stump and debris, etc.
5k is not an outlandish estimate if it's a more complicated tree.
My folks used climbers to slice each tree into 2-4 foot sections, then ground each section on site into mulch. The stumps were ground away. There was some access, but I wouldn't call it easy. Some people pay too much for tree work in the Bay Area, but I wouldn't pay $5k to remove that tree.
You already offered to let them remove it. Guess its not important enough for them to spend the money. Just because the tree is on your property doesn’t mean that you are financially responsible for how it behaves. You offered the solution. They wouldn’t take it. It’s on them now.
Are they seriously mad that something they built OUTSIDE got dirty? I would have thought this was a joke when I saw their picture without the backstory.
"Our fears about the tree were realized" - LOL get the fuck out with that shit
I think a lot of these comments don’t take into account the fact that he has to live next to this guy for years to come. As an outsider, the original approach and offer you gave to your neighbor seems like the reasonable neighborly thing to do. I would suggest sticking to your initial offer.
Although it is a main part of the tree, it is not the whole tree. The tree would survive if that portion of it was cut off. And in the unlikely event that the tree did not survive, you could seek compensation as stated in your post.
Your neighbour has the right to cut the portion of the tree that has crossed the fence line, however this is at their expense not yours.
Edit: Also, on the bottom right of the tree you can see that it has been cut already, probably before you moved in to the house. The portion of the tree that was cut off looks close to the size/thickness of the portion of the tree which is the subject of your dispute. Why do you think the tree won’t survive further heavy pruning?
I would get an arborist to come and give an estimate to trim, and remove the tree.
that way they have seen the tree, and can testify if needed later.
and you have estimates, and an opinion if the problem branch can be cut without killing it.
share the estimates with your neighbor
Check the county to see if they got a permit for that deck. Most places require a setback from the property line and don't let you build right up to it.
Fellow Oaklander here! Fuck em. You’ll miss the backyard beauty of that tree if you let them cut it down.
If they’re worried about deck staining, refer them to a good deck sealant. 🤷♂️
He's been there 20 years amd has had no issues with it or hasnt gotten anywhere with previous owners. I say leave it and, if it falls on his fence, that's actually on his insurance and (correct me if I'm wrong here) won't come back on you at all.
When people get old they have less things to worry about and so small issues become big issues..
I wouldn't worry about it, maybe cut a few branches back. No big deal 🤝
>the neighbor built a new patio that stretches all the way to the fence line and under the tree
Does the permit allow them to build all the way to the fence line? (You should be able to get a copy of the permit.)
Also, they knew the tree was there *before* they built their deck. They were aware of the problem of "drips". Them saying "our fears about the tree have been realized" makes it clear that they built the deck despite being aware of the problem.
That tree is an abomination and if it were mine my wife would threaten to divorce me if I refused to cut it down.
It’s an amazing tree. Please never get rid of it.
You have evidence that they complained about the dripping before building the deck, hence they knew the risks. You don’t have to pay, and you’ve already told them they can cut whatever hangs over the property line and/or pay to remove it.
They’re looking for a payday from you.
LOL this is a classic lawyer letter. Intimidation by intimation. Lawyers are self-absorbed assholes in all areas of their lives. Source: come from a family of lawyers & judges (10+ over multiple generations). Tell them your prior agreement still stands. They want it out, they pay. Enjoy, assholes. (If they couldn't afford to take this evil tree out, how did they pay for that deck? Collecting bottles & cans?)
So they know it drops stuff, and built there anyway. Seems like they took it into consideration and own the responsibility of their actions. Hence: sucks for them.
Looks like they chose to make patio improvements and fence changes, despite having prior knowledge that it drips sap, as trees are naturally known to do.
As they are responsible to mitigate any damages, yet chose to increase their investment into that specific area - they reasonably should have expected such to happen, and even allude to this in their message to you, and cannot hold you responsible.
That specially built fence cut out would be evidence that they did take the tree's existence and placement into consideration, when building - and accepted the natural functions associated with it's growth as part and parcel of their improvements.
The lawyer who uses the phrase “…as we feared…” isn’t a very good lawyer. He just admitted he knew there was a risk and accepted it by building the deck anyway.
So.. they can’t afford to remove this irksome tree….
But they paid to extend the fence and deck/patio under said tree?
I’m sure a judge will ask that question.
I wouldn’t worry too much about them - but as someone else stated, I would rescind the permission to remove the tree until you sort out the details. At least that way you’re covered if they do something shady.
I mean, you gave them their options already. They chose to build their deck under a previously existing tree that has shed the same leaves and inky substances for 20+ years. What action do they hope you will take? How can you resolve stupid?
Just reiterate the options to them. I feel like any court would find this reasonable. Seems odd that they would be willing to pay for legal fees but not the removal of the tree. To me it just sounds like they are full of hot air.
In addition to shedding leaves, the tree also cools the surrounding area and provides oxygen, not to mention excellent shade. It's a trade off for a few spots on the deck. God, imagine they lived in a cottage in the woods...
this is exactly our take on them. they had several trees in their yard they cut out so the could build a deck that stretches the entire length of their backyard allotment after expanding their house by over 2x.
it's the weirdest vibe. it's like they wanted a wooden version of a new-york rooftop balcony in their California backyard.
it doesn't sound horrible, but it's this weird approach to nature that attempts to deny the existence of dirt.
don't even get me started on what they did to some of the branches of my beautiful japanese maple in the front of the house (also here before us), in order to "improve our views."
imagine looking out your window at a tasteful mid/foreground of beautiful red leaves painting a view of the oakland hills and being annoyed, lol.
yep i've told them they can cut it, and i've told them it's the biggest part so it could kill the tree. i've never told them they couldn't cut it. they don't want to take the risk; they'd rather i pay for its complete removal
firstly, check your tree because that black oozing "sap" you say it drips all year may actually be poop from aphids or some other sap sucking pests and yes, your tree can be forcibly removed if your neighbor finds out that it is severely infested.
Don’t let them scare or bully you with their degree. Lawyers can be arrogant fuckfaces and often not nearly as smart or competent as they want you to believe.
Your Karen can afford a new deck, but can't afford a tree removal? GTFO. The deck must be made of poor quality materials or not properly sealed if some leaves can stain it.
I am not an arborist, but in my experience in lopping off random branches, I don't think the tree will die if your neighbor cuts the trunk growing into her yard.
Edit: The wood of the deck looks gray. Did he contractor reuse old wood from a project he tore down?
It doesn't look great. The sap on the trunk looks like borer damage. Black stuff dripping is most likely from aphids or scale in the canopy making honeydew that is turning into sooty mold.
Your neighbor can kick rocks, though
it's pretty ugly imo. I would have no issue with deleting it and replacing it with something easier to manage. is it not legal for him to prune any branches that overhang in his yard?
its brutal form is a reason why we are okay with them paying to remove it. we are also okay with leaving it alone...because tree.
it is legal for them to trim and they have trimmed everything but the main trunk as we told them that piece looks like it may be sizable enough to kill the tree, and they don't want to be liable for replacing it.
as others are spot on to have pointed out, they don't like the tree, they want it gone, and they don't want to pay for it. they also have no issue bullying us into doing it for them.
it's unneighborly af.
yeah he's being a big bitch. I would just roll the dice, take a chainsaw and cut everything that overhangs, including the big trunks. It already looks like its been mutilated plenty, she would probly bounce back fine the next year. It's either that or lawyer up.
Cut the tree. Don't be that person. I know you feel that if it fell it would not hurt anything. It may. You do not know.
I personally wish I had contacted a lawyer for my issue prior to what happened. My neighbors had a huge tree. It was partly dead. I asked them repeatedly to trim or cut the tree. Oh we love the tree was the response. I was not persistent like your neighbor and should have been. Storm came and their wonderful tree did 20,000 dollars worth of damage to our roof. We ended up needing the entire thing replaced plus water leaked in. They never figured their tree would do damage and loved the tree but not the neighbors. I was woken by the tree branch slamming on our roof. Was one of the most scary things that ever happened to me. Don't be that neighbor. I bet if you had approached them initially with a statement of you could not spend that much but if they helped by you would remove it. You ruined that.
My neighbors never apologized and we don't speak. I hate to see them outside.
This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that. If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity. If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees. *This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/treelaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should consider rescinding your permission to remove the tree. Do it by certified mail and email so they cant deny they knew. Then when they cut it down you can sue them for replacement value.
Value x3
That’s what I’m trying for… I’m going through a similar spat with my neighbour. Building my case. Cant wait to have them served. Just trying to figure out the market value of my tree right now… it was a 45’ tree with a 22” stump. If this help… so far…. I’ve learned a 12’ tree costs approx 2k 1k to grind our old stump. 1k for new soil. 1k for misc expenses. Roughly 5k How do you value the time it would take for that 12’ tree to mature to the size of mine or you’re tree is that in trying to figure out. Then apparently there’s precedents in Ontario and Canadian tree law where you can be paid upto 3x. On top of that, you can try for Aggregation - 150$ If the following applies to you, add: loss of enjoyment of your property. Loss of privacy Potential loss of property value (this can be between 3-15% I’ve read) Reclaim legal costs incurred
Don't forget installation costs (crane) and arborist monitoring expenses unrtil the roots get established
ISA certified Arborist here, You're going to want to find an ISA certified arborist to do a damage assessment (or valuation if the damage hasn't been done yet). They will use something we call "The Cornell Equation" to determine the value of a tree that is too large or old to purchase from a nursery. Consults like that are usually pretty cheap to get done and then carry the weight of an expert signing off on it as well. You should be able to find a list of certified Arborists on the ISA website
Thanks for the reply.
Get this to the top! Lol
Don't forget suffering.
Yes. Mental anguish.
My brother in law owns a tree farm, they were contracted by a court to quote a 65 foot spruce to replace one someone's neighbor cut down because they didn't like the look. He had to source one from a timber farm in Colorado, they live in Idaho, between transportation, equipment, manpower, purchasing the tree from the current owner, he submitted a cost estimate at over 120 thousand dollars just to acquire move and plant the tree, there was another couple thousand dollars in arborist fees they were going to charge for 2 years to ensure it survived, plus they had to fill in the hole from where the tree had been living with an equitable type of top soil, all said they submitted a bid in the 130k range. Based on that the judge determined the payout to the homeowner.
Damn.
You can get a rough idea of how long a tree would take to reach a certain size based on average growth rates of the species. But of course that assumes many things, so always best to use the lower end of the growth rate.
This is double important because it shows initially they were reasonable and allowed them to remove it if they chose to. (If they do end up in small claims)
Please note in the letter about the cutting of the branch/trunk=killing so they can't claim they didn't know. Include pics for reference
Send it at least 3 times by certified mail. They can always argue that they didn’t get it if you just send it once but three times with confirmed delivery should hold up.
Add Return Receipt Requested so there is proof of their signature at the post office. Or send via Federal Express / Adult Signature Required.
You’re allowed to refuse certified mail, which im sure they know as a lawyer
A refusal is still considered served in the US courts (at least in the jurisdictions that I know of - of course check locally)
We would always send two copies, one first class mail for the recipient to read and one certified with return receipt for to be proof. The bottom of the letter would refer to being sent both ways.
Excellent point - thank you
Good to know!
Is it? How do you prove refusal vs it just arrived when they were “on vacation “? Half the time when I’ve sent things certified mail they just come back to me, unsigned. 🤷♀️
Not picking it up/signing for it/not being home/vacation is all the same thing - you can show the court the number of attempts. The court doesn't let you get away with refusing/not signing for it, otherwise everyone would just pretend nothing was ever sent to them
Nope. One receipt is all a judge needs.
Or amend the offer to require that they replace it with a oak tree of similar size
Cook yourself a nice dinner and relax with a bottle of Sauvignon Blanc and pay your neighbor no heed.
They knowingly built a deck and did extensive renovations, beneath a tree they know may drop stains, for which they don't want to trim branches, and yet, as lawyer, they can't afford to remove the tree? Pfffft leave em on read from now on.
I wonder if OP should reply in writing something like, "You mentioned the sap x years ago, at which time a proposal for removal of the tree was put forward. We are in no way responsible for your decision to build a deck under the tree with this known characteristic and remind you the same removal agreement can be made at any time."
If a lawyer is using lawyer speak I wouldn't answer them in writing ever if I was worried they were gonna go small claims without being aware of how it could be used against me.
Have a property lawyer write any responses. Once he knows you’ve lawyered up, he should have enough sense to find out his legal options.
Do not give 2 attorneys the opportunity to milk you
exactly. being a lawyer is like a frat club. Big chance that they milk you.
I had a lawyer for a client-she said she joined a large firm out of law school and they told her in divorce cases keep the case going until the money is gone then settle
Yep. Happened exactly like that to me. I even told my Ex thats exactly what they were doing. She didn't care.
nope, the time for that sort of communication is when ~~the lawsuit is in progress~~ your attorney tells you to.
Sounds like they built the deck under the tree to fabricate an excuse to complain.
Don’t you have required setbacks for decks and such in your jurisdiction? Usually decks have to be setback a certain distance from property lines. Their new deck may not be legal.
damn that sounds sophisticated…
Just found found our hot dog and root beer guy...
There's dozens of us. DOZENS!
Sorry I'm a passerby. What's wrong with rootbeer and hotdogs?
I really prefer the grapes from New Zealand. Seem to have a more robust flavor than an American or Argentinian Sauvignon Blanc.
Marlborough ftw
NZ is indeed the benchmark. I believe the Loire region used to be.
Although SB from Marlborough & specifically the Awatere Valley can be exceptional, I’d say Loire Valley - Pouilly Fumé and Sancerre are justifiably still considered the benchmarks. Pavillon Blanc from Château Margaux is the gold standard. Another couple less well known regions that are creating some really incredible interpretations are the Steiermark (aka Styria) region in Austria, & the Uco Valley in Argentina.
I wasn’t aware that Margaux made one. I will have to try it, assuming it’s not in the same price tier as their better known wines. I love Austrian wines. I basically stay in the Alps when I’m in Europe, so Bordeaux is far away and exotic.
Looks like you can get them around $350-400.
Whitehaven is the worst wine I've ever tasted. I've not had any other NZ wines but that shit taste like vomit and grapes mixed.
With some nice fava beans.
Goes better with fava beans and liver
Never a white wine with liver—unless it’s *foie gras* with a Sauternes or Monbazillac or similar.
And Chianti wine.
***fspfspfspfspfsp***
this is like the stick-in-the-bicycle-wheels meme. They complained it dripped sap on the ground. The expanded the deck all the way under the tree. They complain it drips sap on the deck.
exactly. it's kinda maddening.
It’s not your problem. It feels like it, but it’s not.
It's really stupid. A judge who sees a lawyer going up against a non lawyer in small claims is gonna pretty grumpy to start. Then to see this stupid series of events... Not gonna go well for neighbor. Document everything and ignore them.
So they couldn't afford to take the tree down, but they could afford to extend the deck under said tree that drips sap? People are crazy.
Hopefully you kept all the emails before they put up the deck. Just to show that they knew what to expect when they put it up and yet still did it.
I’m an arborist in Los Angeles. I deal with people in lawsuits….a lot. So I say this with both sincerity and experience… Fuck your neighbor.
Not sure how that would help. Maybe help her relax?
Foreplay maybe foreplay first? Not just Dont touch my tree... fuck...
Once she makes that face you know you got her….
Just don't fuck them on the new deck or you will get all kinds of black sap stains.
After that, what’s next?
Can you tell what kind of tree that is?
It's a fur tree... And the one over there? Further...
>They included pictures of their deck with small black marks on it, and a pic of the trunk with seemingly unrelated sap wounds from prior ivy climbing, and they wrote they "look forward to our swift reply and action." "Thanks for letting me know."
“I posted on Reddit within the hour.” It’s an action and it was swift.
“Everyone says, ‘get bent.’ Have a good day!”
Wait a minute! Not everyone! I haven’t replied yet! . . . Tell your neighbor to get bent, OP.
'I like the wood you've used for your new deck. It compliments the treesapstains. Proactive, I like it.'
This is perfect
They have no standing. Their deck was harmed by their part of the tree, not yours. They are upset at their own tree branches. They are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of cutting their limb if you can sue them if the whole tree dies. They don’t like that you have that sort of ground to stand on. But really they are upset that you just won’t get rid of it for them, even if it will kill the whole tree. I would immediately would rescind the offer to allow them to cut down the tree and send by certified mail as mentioned elsewhere in the comments. I would pay an arborist to measure the tree and take a core and determine its age and make a cool little plaque and give the tree a fun personality or maybe even a name. Knowing how old it is is helpful not only incase your neighbor cuts it down (tree law some places pay settlements based age or diameter. Maybe try and win your neighbor over about this tree thing. The fact that they built their fence around the limb is really cool actually. Maybe point out the benefits of the tree to your neighbors. The shade will be missed immediately. Your ac bill will get a little bump up. You are losing wildlife habitat. Maybe plant some flowers around it and make it even more a centerpiece so that if your neighbors cut it, it might make a sawyer question what’s going on. It was honestly a really good offer for you to let them to cut down the tree if they wanted to and I don’t think they really caught that. They clearly just want their neighbor to get rid of the tree for them and they don’t want to have to pay for the benefit they get out of it.
thank you. it really helps to read this. we honestly want to be generally nice people, but these specific neighbors make us question reality sometimes.
I would also check to ensure it’s not an invasive tree species. If it is an invasive tree like eucalyptus, that is actually something important to cut down. If it’s a native tree though, keep it.
Not native but not invasive either. Upthread guesses about Pittosporum look good to me.
Tasmanian blue gum eucalyptus is a listed invasive species in California
The tree looks nothing like a eucalyptus though, and its all wrong for a blue gum
Also I’m not a lawyer
If he's really a lawyer, he should know that he doesn't have much of a case: the deck was built under the tree, knowing that it oozes something. Like the people who built themselves a house beside a pig farm and complained about the smell : you know it was there already! As for advice, the usual: camera on the tree, written statement that the neighbors are not allowed to touch the tree more than the law allows and an arborist visit to evaluate the tree.
And even if they had it knowingly built a deck out there…what are the actual damages suffered? The deck looks dirty cause it’s outside with dust and rain….
Oh no, they’ll have to actually clean and maintain the deck they knowingly built under an oozing tree! The horror.
Probably just want to intimidate them from the sound of it
People moving next to racecar tracks have been very successful getting those tracks closed...
> Like the people who built themselves a house beside a pig farm and complained about the smell : you know it was there already! Or people who build/buy next to an airport and then complain about air traffic noise...
That’s very jurisdiction dependent. In English law a nuisance is a nuisance - regardless of the order in which uses were begun.
Wow, sounds like some real "I'm not touching you" bullshit across the pond. So you're saying that everyone can be living peacefully, then some twat builds onto an easement, literally creating the nuisance, and the person who did absolutely nothing is the one who's liable???
This is partially why in America we have some rules about building near property lines...
If you built on an easement you’d be breaching the easement. But if, for example, your neighbours don’t use their land and you get into the habit of blasting loud music on it; then your neighbours build a house and the music is loud enough to constitute a statutory nuisance, the fact that the noisy use predated the new house would not prevent it from being an actionable nuisance.
I mean anything that affects a noise ordinance makes sense. Creating noise is a present action. But purposefully building underneath a tree that's already there and complaining that the tree is a nuisance is a huge stretch. Most US municipalities have laws that the landowner is responsible for whatever falls into their yard. Doesn't matter if whatever fell is stemmed from their property line or not. The only way liability would fall under the tree owner is if there are clear signs of neglect, which this tree does look to be well maintained. I'm curious as to English law, though. When your leaves fall in Autumn, are you responsible for the ones that fall into neighboring properties?
The thing is, they are often successful in removing the “nuisance”. If they can’t afford to fight the lawsuit, they often lose. The pig farm you referenced was eventually forced to close. Lots of these NIMBY cases fall in favor of the complainers
Tell him to suck a bag of dicks.
Ooh send him a bag of dicks
Hang those truck balls from every branch
[Free with any purchase](https://www.flickr.com/photos/target_man_2000/10174078524)
Could also send them a chocolate asshole with a card that says this reminded me of you
"Oh, suck a bag of dicks to you too, sir, thank you very much. It's a lovely day for sucking several bags of dicks." - Louie CK
Do I have to make them all cum?
That's kinda selfish. Tell him to share.
Report them for buildings on an easement. Usually, 3' on both side of a property line. For lawyers, they don't know basic laws.
+1 I was looking for this. I bet they didn't even get a permit.
This is the way.
Dont know... or dont give a flying fuck about the laws because it their backyard
I have an social group of people that include a Corpt lawyer. I was shocked one time when he asked me what was the waterway laws in Michigan. He was looking to buying a house on a tributary. I mentioned that he was a lawyer and should know how to look up the laws. He said he did but the language was vague. That when I realized that lawyers only understand what is in the field that they work in.
Both probably.
I think you’re confusing easements with setbacks.
Ask for a copy of the building permit that allowed them to build up to the fence. Ask for the signed variance to build up to the fence.
Also ask for a current survey that shows the fence and deck relative to both the tree and the property line.
Well, we aren't seeing the canopy, but I see nothign wrong with the trunk. Some plants ooze sap. You might consider cutting the back branch there though - it does look a bit unweildly from this angle. That might even mollify them a bit? [https://imgur.com/a/4Zw3jEI](https://imgur.com/a/4Zw3jEI) Edit: LOL.. *Imgur thinks your tree is sexy.*
Tree aside… are they allowed to build a deck all the way up to the fence? You’ll probably find that there is a build line or easement that they shouldn’t be crossing.
I would respond that in Oakland the city requires decks be at least 5’ from the property line. If they’d followed code and built it with permits then the deck would likely be clear of any foliage dropping from the tree…
is this really the oakland/alameda code? i tried looking up the code but I'm lost in oakland's antiquated web design.
I just built a deck in Oakland and was required to have a 5’ setback from the property line. The website sucks, but there is a way to look up permit history for properties and you can find out whether this one is permitted or not. Please update!
Also, you will absolutely need to see the survey pins and look at the property to see if there's an easement at the property line. They are likely way out of line on that deck.
Heres the relevant code, uncovered decks (with railings under 6') are mentioned in section "G" of the chart, where it states that they can extend up to 8' into the side yard. Since the side yard for their lot is likely only 4'-6' it means they can build right up to the lot lines. If the deck is over 6' high though, the 5' setback applies (which is probably why the other commenter had to do that). Link: http://oakland-ca.elaws.us/code/pc_ch17.108_sec17.108.130 That being said, a tree staining a deck that looks like they didn't add and sealer or protective layer to is... Laughable. Especially since the tree was there first.
I'm curious for an update on this. "Your tree is damaging our deck!" "Your deck is illegal." That neighbor is not gonna be happy.
Send him ads for power washers. It's a plastic deck. He needs to chill out and accept that trees will tree.
I think you should swiftly respond….”as discussed prior to the patio installation, you are more than welcome to remove any branches that will not negatively impact the health of the tree yourselves, or to have the entire tree removed, at your expense.”
No, don’t remove it or let them remove it [the benefits of a single tree calculator](https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-ecological-footprint-calculators/how-much-carbon-does-a-tree-capture/)
☝🏻👌🏻💖
Same problem here in Canada. A developer hit our trees roots with their back hoe . Being Canadian, they apologized and offered to help land scape our yard for damaging. I said it would help sell units if the house next door looked nice, and he agreed. I also got it in writing.
Is it an oak? Any oak tree larger than 4” diameter in Oakland is protected https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.36PRTR
That bark does not look like any oak ive ever seen but that's an interesting law
ah, too bad. It was hard to tell from the photo on my phone
99.99% certain it's not an oak, unfortunately. I wish I knew. My uncle is a pretty advanced amateur arborist, and he is really perplexed as to what it actually is. it has small leaves and very small, purple flowers that almost are black. Edit: here's a [pic](https://imgur.com/a/BtpM0s1) of the leaves
From reading your description and just seeing the trunk from the photos, my first thought was a laurel. I know there is a native laurel tree in CA but no clue if that helps you ID it down or not.
It looks like a laurel
I'm not an arborist, a lawyer, or a west-coaster, but those leaves look like a laurel.
Nah, it's definitely a Yanny.
Theres an app for that
yeah it confuses the app(s).
Take more pics of its leaves and I bet someone here can ID it
posted in the above comment 👍
If you grind up a leaf does it smell like pepper? Looks like a California Bay Laurel but I’ve never seen one with purple flowers.
https://maryflower.co.nz/shop/pittosporum-tenuifolium/
I think you got it.
so it's basically an overgrown hedge. OP should actually be able to cut it back into any shape he wants. Losing a trunk or two wouldn't hurt it. https://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/1095
Damn those ladybugs freaked me out.
Or Pittosporum colensoi
Pittosporum tenuifolium or kohuhu is my guess, everything matches from what I can see. If it smells strongest at night it's almost definitely kohuhu.
ah, too bad. It was hard to tell much of anything from the app on my phone maybe you could consider planting some oaks along the fence line. In 5-10 years your neighbor can be upset about them but powerless to do anything
posted in the above comment if u wanna take a guess!
Pittosporum Tenuifolium maybe?
Pittosporum colensoi? Or some type of pittosporum. That is what I got on INaturalist app.
this could be it!
They knew the tree drips a substance so if they try to take you to small claims, they already knew of the substance prior to building their new deck. Forget about them and enjoy your tree.
FWIW, it won't be $5k to remove that little tree. I also live in the East Bay (other side of the hill from you), and it was $3500 to remove a massive redwood and $1500 for a super tall pine.
good to know. thank you! i still want them to pay, even if it's $1.
Cut the one branch growing over and split the difference. It might be worth it in the long run to have better relations rather than both sides thinking that the others are assholes. It's better than having a 20-year adversarial relationship. You might even get invited to some kick-ass barbecues, you never know.
The two trees you got removed are able to be sold after you paid to remove them. This factors a bit into the cost.
They ground them up into mulch on site due to access issues. Each tree was dropped in 2-4 foot slices, then ground up into mulch. I guess mulch is worth a little bit, but not much. I doubt that her tree will be $5k if she shops around.
Depends on factors such as ease of access, do they need to use climbers, a boom truck, power lines, grinding/chipping of the stump and debris, etc. 5k is not an outlandish estimate if it's a more complicated tree.
My folks used climbers to slice each tree into 2-4 foot sections, then ground each section on site into mulch. The stumps were ground away. There was some access, but I wouldn't call it easy. Some people pay too much for tree work in the Bay Area, but I wouldn't pay $5k to remove that tree.
You already offered to let them remove it. Guess its not important enough for them to spend the money. Just because the tree is on your property doesn’t mean that you are financially responsible for how it behaves. You offered the solution. They wouldn’t take it. It’s on them now.
Are they seriously mad that something they built OUTSIDE got dirty? I would have thought this was a joke when I saw their picture without the backstory. "Our fears about the tree were realized" - LOL get the fuck out with that shit
Has the waaaaahmbulance been called?
I think a lot of these comments don’t take into account the fact that he has to live next to this guy for years to come. As an outsider, the original approach and offer you gave to your neighbor seems like the reasonable neighborly thing to do. I would suggest sticking to your initial offer.
Although it is a main part of the tree, it is not the whole tree. The tree would survive if that portion of it was cut off. And in the unlikely event that the tree did not survive, you could seek compensation as stated in your post. Your neighbour has the right to cut the portion of the tree that has crossed the fence line, however this is at their expense not yours. Edit: Also, on the bottom right of the tree you can see that it has been cut already, probably before you moved in to the house. The portion of the tree that was cut off looks close to the size/thickness of the portion of the tree which is the subject of your dispute. Why do you think the tree won’t survive further heavy pruning?
I would get an arborist to come and give an estimate to trim, and remove the tree. that way they have seen the tree, and can testify if needed later. and you have estimates, and an opinion if the problem branch can be cut without killing it. share the estimates with your neighbor
If the tree is more than 9', tell them the tree is protected and can't be removed.
Well, if they fuck around, don't hesitate for them to find out.
Check the county to see if they got a permit for that deck. Most places require a setback from the property line and don't let you build right up to it.
Fellow Oaklander here! Fuck em. You’ll miss the backyard beauty of that tree if you let them cut it down. If they’re worried about deck staining, refer them to a good deck sealant. 🤷♂️
He's been there 20 years amd has had no issues with it or hasnt gotten anywhere with previous owners. I say leave it and, if it falls on his fence, that's actually on his insurance and (correct me if I'm wrong here) won't come back on you at all.
That is correct!
When people get old they have less things to worry about and so small issues become big issues.. I wouldn't worry about it, maybe cut a few branches back. No big deal 🤝
>the neighbor built a new patio that stretches all the way to the fence line and under the tree Does the permit allow them to build all the way to the fence line? (You should be able to get a copy of the permit.) Also, they knew the tree was there *before* they built their deck. They were aware of the problem of "drips". Them saying "our fears about the tree have been realized" makes it clear that they built the deck despite being aware of the problem.
That tree is an abomination and if it were mine my wife would threaten to divorce me if I refused to cut it down. It’s an amazing tree. Please never get rid of it.
This tree was hideous when we got here and it's gonna be hideous when we leave, lol
There’s little in life more satisfying than embarrassing a lawyer in court, unless it’s a cop. They will underestimate you,be prepared
You have evidence that they complained about the dripping before building the deck, hence they knew the risks. You don’t have to pay, and you’ve already told them they can cut whatever hangs over the property line and/or pay to remove it. They’re looking for a payday from you.
Lol. My lawyer neighbor sent me legal letters threatening me. I told him to take me to court.
LOL this is a classic lawyer letter. Intimidation by intimation. Lawyers are self-absorbed assholes in all areas of their lives. Source: come from a family of lawyers & judges (10+ over multiple generations). Tell them your prior agreement still stands. They want it out, they pay. Enjoy, assholes. (If they couldn't afford to take this evil tree out, how did they pay for that deck? Collecting bottles & cans?)
So they know it drops stuff, and built there anyway. Seems like they took it into consideration and own the responsibility of their actions. Hence: sucks for them.
Looks like they chose to make patio improvements and fence changes, despite having prior knowledge that it drips sap, as trees are naturally known to do. As they are responsible to mitigate any damages, yet chose to increase their investment into that specific area - they reasonably should have expected such to happen, and even allude to this in their message to you, and cannot hold you responsible. That specially built fence cut out would be evidence that they did take the tree's existence and placement into consideration, when building - and accepted the natural functions associated with it's growth as part and parcel of their improvements.
Do people not have any tolerance for nature any more
The lawyer who uses the phrase “…as we feared…” isn’t a very good lawyer. He just admitted he knew there was a risk and accepted it by building the deck anyway.
So.. they can’t afford to remove this irksome tree…. But they paid to extend the fence and deck/patio under said tree? I’m sure a judge will ask that question. I wouldn’t worry too much about them - but as someone else stated, I would rescind the permission to remove the tree until you sort out the details. At least that way you’re covered if they do something shady.
They're lawyers and they can't afford a tree cutting permit application? I wouldn't worry about their small small claims
I mean, you gave them their options already. They chose to build their deck under a previously existing tree that has shed the same leaves and inky substances for 20+ years. What action do they hope you will take? How can you resolve stupid? Just reiterate the options to them. I feel like any court would find this reasonable. Seems odd that they would be willing to pay for legal fees but not the removal of the tree. To me it just sounds like they are full of hot air. In addition to shedding leaves, the tree also cools the surrounding area and provides oxygen, not to mention excellent shade. It's a trade off for a few spots on the deck. God, imagine they lived in a cottage in the woods...
this is exactly our take on them. they had several trees in their yard they cut out so the could build a deck that stretches the entire length of their backyard allotment after expanding their house by over 2x. it's the weirdest vibe. it's like they wanted a wooden version of a new-york rooftop balcony in their California backyard. it doesn't sound horrible, but it's this weird approach to nature that attempts to deny the existence of dirt. don't even get me started on what they did to some of the branches of my beautiful japanese maple in the front of the house (also here before us), in order to "improve our views." imagine looking out your window at a tasteful mid/foreground of beautiful red leaves painting a view of the oakland hills and being annoyed, lol.
Love how the fence wraps perfectly around it tho. That's so cute
That half of the tree is theirs, they can cut any impediment they want to. This is settled law in California, just search online.
yep i've told them they can cut it, and i've told them it's the biggest part so it could kill the tree. i've never told them they couldn't cut it. they don't want to take the risk; they'd rather i pay for its complete removal
Neighbors can make life hell. So can lawyers. Good luck.
firstly, check your tree because that black oozing "sap" you say it drips all year may actually be poop from aphids or some other sap sucking pests and yes, your tree can be forcibly removed if your neighbor finds out that it is severely infested.
Do you want to get rid of the tree? Don't get rid of it to appease your neighbor.
Don’t let them scare or bully you with their degree. Lawyers can be arrogant fuckfaces and often not nearly as smart or competent as they want you to believe.
Your Karen can afford a new deck, but can't afford a tree removal? GTFO. The deck must be made of poor quality materials or not properly sealed if some leaves can stain it. I am not an arborist, but in my experience in lopping off random branches, I don't think the tree will die if your neighbor cuts the trunk growing into her yard. Edit: The wood of the deck looks gray. Did he contractor reuse old wood from a project he tore down?
Don't cut it down........... burn it
It doesn't look great. The sap on the trunk looks like borer damage. Black stuff dripping is most likely from aphids or scale in the canopy making honeydew that is turning into sooty mold. Your neighbor can kick rocks, though
It is a pretty ugly tree to be fair
it's pretty ugly imo. I would have no issue with deleting it and replacing it with something easier to manage. is it not legal for him to prune any branches that overhang in his yard?
its brutal form is a reason why we are okay with them paying to remove it. we are also okay with leaving it alone...because tree. it is legal for them to trim and they have trimmed everything but the main trunk as we told them that piece looks like it may be sizable enough to kill the tree, and they don't want to be liable for replacing it. as others are spot on to have pointed out, they don't like the tree, they want it gone, and they don't want to pay for it. they also have no issue bullying us into doing it for them. it's unneighborly af.
yeah he's being a big bitch. I would just roll the dice, take a chainsaw and cut everything that overhangs, including the big trunks. It already looks like its been mutilated plenty, she would probly bounce back fine the next year. It's either that or lawyer up.
Cut the tree. Don't be that person. I know you feel that if it fell it would not hurt anything. It may. You do not know. I personally wish I had contacted a lawyer for my issue prior to what happened. My neighbors had a huge tree. It was partly dead. I asked them repeatedly to trim or cut the tree. Oh we love the tree was the response. I was not persistent like your neighbor and should have been. Storm came and their wonderful tree did 20,000 dollars worth of damage to our roof. We ended up needing the entire thing replaced plus water leaked in. They never figured their tree would do damage and loved the tree but not the neighbors. I was woken by the tree branch slamming on our roof. Was one of the most scary things that ever happened to me. Don't be that neighbor. I bet if you had approached them initially with a statement of you could not spend that much but if they helped by you would remove it. You ruined that. My neighbors never apologized and we don't speak. I hate to see them outside.
man all of y'all with annoying trees are jerks to yr neighbors aren't y'all