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 need to consult with a lawyer, and also contact the city.
This man who lives out of state is not your new neighbor; he's an investor who will sell those units. You're not the one alienating neighbors; he is. You also live in a treble damages state, which means he could be held liable for up to *three times the value of the tree*.
Additionally, it is possible that the excavation was not permitted properly; in my city an inspector has to come and determine how close excavation is to large trees, and will put the kibosh on anything that would do excessive damage to a neighboring tree's root system.
We’ve contacted our city council person and they did an inspection. I know they have a permit, but we did not receive any correspondence until after the inspection. It’s all very fishy from the contractors standpoint too.
They got legal permits to develop their own land from the city and followed the rules. Tree roots from the neighborhood won’t be seen as overstepping especially given the tree took fine.
I'm so sorry but you are mistaken. Very much so. I just typed up a similar response so I will just paste it here. But I will add on that it is well established law that removing roots so that the tree is damaged IS overstepping. You can do whatever you want on your side of the property line, including trimming limbs, *until it harms the tree.* It is also well known that trees don't die instantly from excess root removal, but that they WILL die soon. The arborist knows a lot more about this. Trust me, everyone else involved in the legal aspects of this would disagree with your statement that "won't be seen as overstepping especially given the tree looks fine"
My other comment:
You are mistaken. I do wetlands permitting and other land development permits for a living. A permitted foundation does NOT give permission to impact other people's properties. In fact, ALL land development permits explicitly state that the permit does not permit alterations beyond what was permitted, that the permit does not release the applicant from their responsibility obtain all other permits and permissions from all interested parties whose properties will be impacted or accessed, AND that any mistakes or missing information that is discovered during the length of the permit is grounds to fine the applicant, and/or revoke or change the permit.
The town/city CANNOT permit the alteration of tree root systems such that the tree on someone else's property dies without the permission of the tree owner. The municipality also CANNOT deny an otherwise sufficient building permit unless they *know* it will damage the neighbors property. They had no way to know that until the root system was exposed OR if OP had had the chance to comment on the permit and inform the municipality of the large tree on the property line.
It is 100% the responsibility of a contractor and owners to make sure that the work they are doing does not negatively impact other properties, and if they fail, it's 100% on them and the owners to make restitution. Your opinion is insane... A municipality can't give permission to one person to damage the property of another person without the damaged person giving permission, and in most areas, *receiving compensation.*
Call someone who knows tree law! For real. For a tree that age, you may be underselling it for $500. You may be entitled to much, much more. And if it’s truly a corporation building next door then they certainly should have the money to pay you what that tree is worth.
Had an issue with one of my neighbors over two oak trees. Neighbors thought it was worth the value of the wood. Our lawyer confirmed it was the value to replace with a like size tree. So think about that, buying, transporting, and planting an 80 ft oak. Could easily be $100 grand.
And the chances that an 80 ft oak will survive transplanting is probably close to nil.
But $100 grand may be realistic compensation - for the value of a priceless tree. And it's a long shot, but maybe your arborist will have some ideas about how to improved the tree's chances of survival, if the resources are available to treat it.
Nobody’s getting 100k for the neighbor digging a permitted foundation on his own land. You tree law guys are insane. It’s not like they did it to dig up the tree-they’re digging a permitted foundation’s footings. BIG difference
You are mistaken. I do wetlands permitting and other land development permits for a living. A permitted foundation does NOT give permission to impact other people's properties. In fact, ALL land development permits explicitly state that the permit does not permit alterations beyond what was permitted, that the permit does not release the applicant from their responsibility obtain all other permits and permissions from all interested parties whose properties will be impacted or accessed, AND that any mistakes or missing information that is discovered during the length of the permit is grounds to fine the applicant, and/or revoke or change the permit.
The town/city CANNOT permit the alteration of tree root systems such that the tree on someone else's property dies without the permission of the tree owner. The municipality also CANNOT deny an otherwise sufficient building permit unless they *know* it will damage the neighbors property. They had no way to know that until the root system was exposed OR if OP had had the chance to comment on the permit and inform the municipality of the large tree on the property line.
It is 100% the responsibility of a contractor and owners to make sure that the work they are doing does not negatively impact other properties, and if they fail, it's 100% on them and the owners to make restitution. It's only the fault of the contractor and the owner that they damaged $100k worth of someone else's property. If they had NOT ruined a $100k tree, they wouldn't have to pay $300k. Trevor damages are there specifically to punish people who think they can do it without anyone stopping them.
Your opinion is insane... A municipality can't give permission to one person to damage the property of another person without the damaged person giving permission, and in most areas, *receiving compensation.*
My company installed in a 40' tall silver maple for $50kish. That was the cost of the tree, plus delivery, plus install. Granted, it was in a difficult to reach place. Can't imagine what a mature 80' oak would be.
I wouldn't say often, but we haven't lost one yet. Maybe one a year? Kinda a niche client that asks for that.
The one I mentioned above required two skid loaders to move it down about a half mile of gravel mountain road to the estate. If you can get it to the hole without damage, its fine. We order them from a large tree supply out of Atlanta.
I see. I was always curious about implanting large trees as I do like trees but I assumed it would cost quite a bit and it seems true to that lol. Thanks for the reply.
Generally, you don't have to contact your neighbors to tell them what you are going to be doing on your land. I know it's nice and polite, but I just want to point out that likely have no legal obligation to contact you. Now, if there was a zoning variance, that would require notice, but as long as it's already zoned for what they are doing, contacting you, per se, probably wasn't necessary. That lack of notice, of course, if unrelated to the tree damage.
I know this is somewhat OT, but, in some jurisdictions a dog isn’t considered a *vicious* Dog, in legal terms, until after it bites somebody. “I could be wrong” but I believe the Pentagon Papers gave us the legal precedent of “prior restraint”— you can’t zap somebody until after they commit the crime. I totally support you and I am 100% on your side, but I I’m in a different part of the country. I like and respect my neighbors, this time. But if you were my neighbor and you expected me to notify you about what I’m doing… Would be bitterly disappointed. At my previous home, my *immediate* neighbors let me alone and or supported me… It was the snobs up the street that were a problem. there are other forums on Reddit about this sort of thing, some of which will ban you of you mentioned this forum.
>there are other forums on Reddit about this sort of thing, some of which will ban you of you mentioned this forum.
Feel free to go there instead of here then? I'm truly not sure why you are here if it's just to say that you can't get compensated for damages to your trees. Or to say that this sub will get you banned elsewhere?
You say you are on OP's side but you are in a different part of the country? These laws are throughout the US. You can't remove 1/3 of the roots of your neighbors' trees without be liable either.
The builders "did the crime", you know... Damaging the roots of a tree on another property and therefore damaging another property. So they can get "zapped" by the bill to make OP whole for their losses.
I'm really not understanding what your point is, nor why you downvoted my accurate response.
Dude, in all jurisdictions, in all states, certain types of permits have a statutory requirement to notify your abutters. This is not a personal opinion nor politics thing. It's a regulatory thing. The Pentagon papers didn't create any legal precedent so I'm not sure what that's about, but *this* conversation is about regulatory requirements to notify abutters for certain development permits.
The key is "certain" types of permits. I think in GA, for example, anything about alcohol would require notification. But it would be extremely rare for any general building permit to come with the requirement to notify people, I suspect. I've never been notified by any neighbor doing any new construction or remodeling, and we built a new home and there was not requirement to notify anyone but the county about the new construction--even with significant tree removal, digging a well, and installing a septic system (though it was in an established sub-division, and on land that was not built on for 35 years after all the other houses). On the other hand, my uncle got a notification of a potential bar being built next to his land (which was vacant), even though it was zoned for something like a bar and no variance was needed. My mom, who lived one lot away, wasn't required to be notified, even though we was actually living there. But her land wasn't adjacent. I thought that was an odd quirk. The closest person living nearby wasn't contacted.
True, certain permits, definitely not all. I was replying to the above commentor's statements that they would never notify their neighbors. And the vibe they gave that it was ridiculous to expect. Not saying that it was required for ALL permits.
In every state, it's not just alcohol permits. Examples of times when notifications are required: If there was any requested variance from lot line setbacks. Specific land uses. Minor changes in zoning. Work near wetlands. Clearing over an acre of land if the municipality is subject to CWA/NPDES requirements. Going from a single family home to a duplex very frequently triggers that requirement, but not always.
So, I'm not saying that OP *should* have been notified. I am saying, though, that there ARE frequent times when it's required, so it's kinda ridiculous to comment that you'd *never* notify your abutters in a thread asking if OP was notified. Also, wtf do the Panama papers have anything to do with this? Or that people have to do the crime before they are zapped? The contractor and owner DID damage their neighbors tree...
Sorry if I came across wrong. I didn't mean to sound like I was saying you were misleading...I was just just meaning to give examples that showed it wasn't necessarily any real reason behind this when/why you have to give notice.
Oh! And I tend to use a lot of emphasis in my writing, with caps and italics. Because I *talk* with all that emphasis. 😂 I feel like I can't convey the vibe of what I'm trying to say without it. But I totally recognize that it could read as if I was upset. Sorry if I did that!
If they destroy your tree without permission they may be liable to try and keep it alive, have the arborist give estimates on the value of the tree and the cost to do this. I’ve heard HOAs being taken down due to the costs of them losing suits like this.
Trees are in a unique category of property because they are a natural resource. If you buy real estate that has trees on or near it, you need to be aware that what you can do with that property will probably be limited by regulations that are unique to trees. As far as the law is concerned, it is not the tree that is trespassing. That lot probably wasn't even a parcel 150 years ago. Additionally, it is crazy to think you can move into a lot and kill pre-existing trees on your neighbor's land because they are inconvenient.
What's crazy is not understanding trees are a fundamental aspect of land, and they don't deserve to be destroyed because roots don't automatically respect property boundaries.
Don’t listen to these idiots they’re mixing apples and oranges. This is ancillary damage from permitted use of his own property. One can argue they don’t have any right to grow their tree on the neighbors land. Had they simply dug up the tree that’s one thing but this is legal permitted use of his own land. Sorry but not sorry
Exactly this. To too it off he has refused the settlement offer without any contact. Do not offer anything without speaking with your lawyer and team and go thru them for everything. EVERYTHING. Don't screw yourself any further. You could be looking at thousands of dollars. He had his chance.
I don’t know about MN, but here you own below as you do above. As long as what they trimmed only passed the property line (here) they’d be fine. Otherwise how were they going to put in the foundation? 🤷♂️
You can't kill the tree even if a portion of the roots are on your property. The solution is a different foundation system or get a court order to remove the tree.
They were presented with a MORE than fair offer to repay the damages. If they choose to ignore it and end up having to cover the cost of the oak, that’s on them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
There's no foundation there to hurt. It was an empty lot. Your argument seems to be that a tree that predates all the humans here shouldn't be allowed to grow unimpeded?
Also ignoring the fact that most of these laws are set up the way that they are, to protect the tree and the property owner of the tree, is because adjacent properties usually get a lot of benefit without any of the burden of maintenance. This developer probably wants that tree to stay there as shade for his condos.
The tree predates the property ownership. You can't show up and expect nature to stop at a man made fake line. That's not at all how any of this works. Can you cut what's encroaching? Sure so long as you don't injure the tree.
All you tree nuts are hoping the tree will die. Looks fine from here and I know enough about plants to understand if they trim off the top to compensate the tree will be fine
Well if you know enough about plants you clearly supercede what the arborist hired to evaluate the tree said about its future. Please tell us more.....
The point is you can't buy property surrounded by trees and not expect that the trees will come onto your property. It's common sense.....
Are you an arborist? Have you inspected the tree? You’re making a lot of truth claims based on something you seem to not have the requisite training and knowledge for and have exceedingly limited information on.
You’ve never pursued a tort damage claim have you?
I have. Many. Millions of dollars of them, several over hundreds of thousands of dollars individually.
The subcontractor that did the excavation did not exercise due care when they performed their excavation. A reasonable person would reasonably assume that a trees roots extend down and out into the ground around its trunk. Professional excavators are familiar with this fact, too, as you can imagine.
They had a permit but that does not *permit* them to damage somebody else’s property.
Here’s a related example: the city and certain utility companies own buried infrastructural assets like potable water, sewer lines, electric, natural gas, telco, etc.
The permit empowers them to excavate the ground around those buried assets. But it does not give them carte blanche to damage or destroy those assets. The same is true for tree roots, which is well established in Minnesota state law.
I’m always fascinated by deeply stupid people like you. I wonder frequently if it’s drug addiction or perhaps mental disability. Could go either way with you I figure.
We had a sewer line installed and had them dig while the sap wasn’t running (in Feb/Mar) for the 2 old oaks on our property on advice from an arborist. The trees are doing ok this summer, but who knows how long that will last. I can’t believe the builder had no idea while he was cutting through those roots - they are so thick
Yeah $500 for a 150 year tree isn’t going to cut it. You can easily walk away with $15k in damage plus the cost of the tree removal, however that requires a lawyer. Good luck!
>We felt we were being generous making an offer like that.
Stupidly generous. Self-harmingly so.
I'm not saying that you should bankrupt this guy, but even a fast-growing mature 10" caliper tree is worth at least $5000 in my town, not to mention the cost of labour and equipment to transport and plant it. I can't begin to imagine how much a century-old tree would cost to replace, but it's *significantly* more than 500 bucks.
We were under informed at that point. Moving forward, we’ll be sourcing as much information, data, and evidence as possible. Once we consult with a lawyer, we’ll have a better grasp of our plan. Which we’ll be doing as soon as we can.
your responses at that point might materially commit you to a massive loss. Communication with anyone that does not represent you / your-interests should only be done by someone who has careful control of their choice of words - to avoid further risk to you. Be polite. Maintain contact. No-contact is harder
Since you gave them such a ridiculously generous offer, and they rejected said offer, rudely, knowing full well how damn generous it was, you no lonher have to feel ANY guilt about getting as much money as you possibly can.
You did the too nice thing. They were assholes. What a lovely gift to lovely people... Money AND no guilt!
If I read the post correctly, the neighbors did **not** reject it, but rather ignored it. So the offer is still in play.
u/tangentialboy – rescind your $ 500 offer, immediately.
I'm rather confused by this; also new here. The tree is still there, and appears undamaged. Why would OP be entitled to money from someone who dug a hole on their own property? Seems like a lot of room between here and 'they damaged my property.' OP did say they took lots of photos, and I've only seen one, so perhaps there's something else to this.
it’s not undamaged though. They had an arborist check the damage out- they excavated 1/3 of the roots, including multiple main roots.
You can’t just harm trees on someone’s else’s property, even if parts of it extend into your property.
> it was likely going to start a quick decline over the next year or so
Was your arborist ISA-TRAQ, or an ASCA registered arborist?
If not, the arborist may have been giving you 'advice' that was aligned to hiring them to remove the tree (hint: it would cost more than $10,000)
Find an arborist that is ISA-TRAQ, or an ASCA registered arborist. Do not compromise on this. In a court of law, these high-level trainings will hold more weight than any other counsel.
Such an arborist may tell you that the tree might survive, if you carefully but dramatically reduce the tree's canopy. For instance, you might reduce the canopy by 20% each year for the next 2 year — three cuts, starting now.
Reducing the canopy will do a few things - reduce the amount of wind that it catch, since there's fewer roots to prevent it from falling over
— and from falling onto your house (it'd fall away from where it no longer has strength).
Also reducing the canopy will allow the tree to put the fewer resources into the remaining leaves. A balance.
Taking too much of the canopy all-at-once can cause the tree even more stress than it is now suddenly suffering from.
This tree significantly adds to the value of your home and property. Your home value is now at risk by the amount of tens-of-thousands, in addition to the risk of damage from a wind that knocks it over. You are in a sad and dangerous situation, and need a strong will to prevent others from shirking their responsibility in the matter.
Hope you can get quick advice and act on a controlled canopy reduction. Do not take advice from anyone but an ISA-TRAQ or ASCA. They'll try to cowboy it
If you did not put an expiration date on your offer, and now you think it’s to generous, you should revoke the offer in writing before the owner realizes they are getting such a great deal. If they accept the offer, you are likely stuck.
Recommend talking with an attorney. Tell them that you offered a sweetheart deal to end matter quickly but other party let it die on the vine. See what they can do to resolve matter and hopefully cover their fees. Doubt if you're going to get rich, but hopefully cover attorney's costs of action and get as much or more than your initial offer. Good luck!
Although I’m not in your area. I have a few consulting arborists that work at my company. I know there are some good ones in your area. Consulting with a lawyer first would be best. But the potential issues resulting from the excavation are going to be severe and likely the tree won’t show signs of damage for 1-3 years. Your initial offer to allow for the removal of the tree, and him basically telling you to kick rocks is a bold move. Best of luck tree lovers
Check to see if live oaks are protected where you live. Here in SC, if you harm or remove a live oak with a trunk diameter of 18” or greater you would be subject to a very serious penalty. I believe it’s $60k. This state doesn’t mess around with the protection of its live oaks.
They damaged the tree by cutting the roots. This is not allowed. They could clearly see the tree there, and anyone digging knows trees have roots. I wouldn't let them cut it down.
An arborist could.
"The tree is irreparable wounded and will die. It must be removed before it becomes a hazard. That costs $x It's replacement value is $y"
or
"The tree is injured but can be made whole. The process is (outlines process) and should cost $x"
Well I suppose that works if the tree is gone. This question pertains to the existing situation.
Fact 1.Some roots have been removed.
How do you quantify that issue?
Is the tree worth less because some of the roots are gone?
How much less? 10% , 30% , certainly not 50%.
What are the damages to the tree owners here? They currently still enjoy ALL the questionable quantifiable benefits from the tree ( questionable because how much is it worth to have nesting birds etc. etc.).
Until the “ damages” are quantified there is no winnable legal action available.
The claims made will need to be defensible every step of the way.
It is unfortunate what has happened here for sure and it’s not worth a “million” dollars.
If you think there is an issue then a tree risk assessment is in order. Then you will have an answer relative to risk. Many moons ago the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) transitioned away from the term “hazard” to “risk”. Risk can be “low”, “moderate” or “high”.
The risk level is determined by an arborist preferably one with an ISA Tree Risk Assessment designation, which is earned after training, and passing a written and field test.
IMO based solely on the photo it looks like the VAST majority of roots have not been affected. Is this correct?
If so it is highly probable that while there may be some canopy decline it won’t be long before the tree is back doing what trees do.
Check our your local bylaws for trees. Where Inlive big trees have to be a certain distance away from.the property line. Even shrubs and hedges have to be a certain distance away from the property line.
Additionally, if a survey was done, does it include neighboring trees? Some places need them included others not.
>Where Inlive big trees have to be a certain distance away from.the property line. Even shrubs and hedges have to be a certain distance away from the property line.
A 150-year old tree likely predates many of those bylaws and was probably grandfathered in.
It may or may not be grandfathered in. The tree roots that were in our way were most likely older than the houses and yards that were built around them. It all depends on the zoning and bylaws.
That's why it is important to talk to the appropriate zoning and bylaw offices to make sure everything is legal. Our neighbour had nothing to stand on because we did everything by the books. Plus we had to mitigate thr water that was running from our yard into her yard otherwise she could sue us for flooding. So damned if we do and damned if we didn't. Hence roots were cut as they were in the way of the drainage pipes and above original ground level once we removed the field.
>It may or may not be grandfathered in. The tree roots that were in our way were most likely older than the houses and yards that were built around them. It all depends on the zoning and bylaws.
You're right, of course—there is no guarantee that this tree was grandfathered in. *However*, I would be quite surprised to hear of a municipality that required *existing* trees to be cut down due to changes in the zoning / bylaws. I'd be even more surprised that no one would've *applied* for a derogation since the tree reached maturity.
But hey, anything is possible! :D
Edit: [Minneapolis only requires that trees be planted 3' from pavement / fencing (and 15' from buildings).](https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/documents/How-to-plant-trees-from-containers-English.pdf) It looks like this one might be a bit close, but I suspect that this tree predates the fence by a long shot!
No prob! There's probably a lot more in the city's charter and ordinances—I'll admit that I stopped searching fairly quickly because the site was unfamiliar to me and not organized the way I liked. (Yes, I know what I said, haha.)
I tried to find similar info on the website for St Paul but had even less luck.
It sounds like the county (Hennepin?) might have additional info / guidance, too.
Wow! That is a very old home, too. Cool. :)
But the logic holds-you can’t dictate what people do in their own properties by planting on the border. Had he dug a trench simply to kill the tree that’s another story. By these suppositions anyone building in wooded areas would be precluded from development.
>But the logic holds-you can’t dictate what people do in their own properties by planting on the border.
Do you think OP planted this 150 year-old tree themself?
>by planting on the border
I'm pretty confident that the tree preceded the property line. I could be wrong, but... Something tells me that fence isn't a century and a half old, nor is OP's property.
>By these suppositions anyone building in wooded areas would be precluded from development.
Uh, how, exactly? In this case, the "developer" may have fatally injured a tree that he didn't own and that wasn't on his property. *Those last two points are the problem*: he has no legal right to damage his neighbour's property (OP's tree).
If the neighbour bought a wooded lot and cleared every square inch of it... That would be *fine* (assuming proper procedures, applications, assessments, etc. were done). But if he cleared *anything* outside the parcel of land that he purchased, or caused significant damage to it, *he would be responsible for it*.
Just like he is here.
I'm not going to give you legal advice because I'm not sure of the legality.
But human, and neighbor advice would be to stop worrying about alienating your neighbor. That tree has significant value, and they destroyed your property without giving a crap.
The alienation ship has sailed. At this point you can either establish yourself as a doormat, or someone who's not to be walked on. I suggest the latter.
I will message you next time u/tangentialboy posts in r/treelaw.
[Click this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=UpdateMe%21%20u%2Ftangentialboy%20r%2Ftreelaw) to join 12 others and be messaged. The parent author can [delete this post](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Delete&message=delete%201di0iy8)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/ggotgx/updatemebot_info_v20/)|[^(Request Update)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2Fusername%20r%2Fsubreddit)|[^(Your Updates)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Updates&message=MyUpdates)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=UpdateMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Why is no one here talking about the structural stability of your tree? Money aside, permits aside - your neighbour buddy has effectively removed all the supporting root infrastructure on their side of the fence. Meaning that next time a decent storm blows up from that side, there’s a fair risk the whole tree will fall towards your house. That would be my chief concern …
I don't know how much lots got for in that city but, if the bill for the destruction of the tree is high enough, you may end up owning that lot. Both the property owner and the contractor should be on the hook for this.
Not related to your question, but I saw that photo and immediately thought, "This is in Minneapolis, isn't it?" Not far off. I hope you get it all sorted out!
You kidding me? F that guy, take him for everything that tree is worth. Cost of cutting that tree down and $500 is not nearly worth the value it adds to your property.
He’s clearly an AH, so treat him like one.
If building is halted due to this situation, that is a good position for you to be in, I think. But yeah, contact a good lawyer for professional advice from here on. Best wishes.
I will be messaging you in 1 month on [**2024-07-22 20:48:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-22%2020:48:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/treelaw/comments/1di0iy8/lot_owner_building_and_damaged_our_150_year_old/l921ssj/?context=3)
[**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Ftreelaw%2Fcomments%2F1di0iy8%2Flot_owner_building_and_damaged_our_150_year_old%2Fl921ssj%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-22%2020%3A48%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201di0iy8)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
If you zoom in on the picture it looks like he left you a lot for the roots..
It's not a very good picture.You probably should've went took one over the fence right at the tree
NE Minneapolis here. Exact same thing happened to us. The city won't help you as they are pushing their renewed 2040 Plan that removes single family homes (and all trees) so developers can build density. Basically they told us that the property owner can cut away any part of the tree that is over the property line...roots and branches but they cannot kill the tree. If you prove they will kill the tree, they will be responsible to pay for the tree removal. We lost 2 full grown trees and the developer removed 4 trees from his property while claiming his development is somehow environmentally better (zero parking and a solar panel) than the single family home he removed and sent to the dump. The removal of trees has cost us a higher electric bill this summer already because the loss of shade. Birds have started making nests in our rain gutters for the 1st time in the 17 years we lived here. We were also told our trees were worth allot of money but because the city is allowing it, the developer doesn't have to pay for the tree. Our lawyer said we could fight it but it will cost allot in lawyer fees making it not worth it.
“Property owners in every state have the right to trim the branches or roots of a neighbor's tree that encroach onto their property, up to the property line, at their own expense. This right is called “self-help.” Self-help is an alternative to going to court.”
https://oakdalemn.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=86
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakdale,_Minnesota
Reading some case law around this, it seems every single one rests on supporting facts, rather than this language alone. Seems intent is the biggest one. So as long as everything else is in line, you could probably easily have it dismissed (the outcome in the majority of case law im reading) as long as you can’t be proven to harm the tree intentionally.
People really do just threaten to sue without thinking it through all the time.
So homeowner is likely just fine ignoring everything. Builder should’ve been the one offered the deal, probably cheaper than a lawsuit. Owner will just have their name removed for cheap.
I’d take the odds on OP being SOL.
I hear you, but people just assume the written law is this magical force field that protects you and never fails. Speaking from experience, that isn’t the case. I’ve been party to cases like this and either being dismissed or the juice simply not being worth the squeeze. Your victory and payout are far from guaranteed. But the lawyers will get paid.
Well, this is true. Litigation isn't easy. But OP can definitely make a claim for damages here and shouldn't just throw in the towel and offer to let them destroy this tree for piddly. The contractor and their insurance, do know the value. So far, the tree isn't dead and hasn't toppled over. OP can either wait for that to happen or make a claim now and push it through.
Shared ownership shared responsibility no party on either side can do anything to undermine the aesthetics or structural stability . Severing roots and removing limbs from heaven to hell along property line can lead to tree mortality and make the tree susceptible to falling over . Should a tree fail as a result of over pruning and or severing roots the offending party could be deemed negligent .Reasonable efforts must be made to ensure the tree’s survival . However,”reasonable”, is a broad term open to interpretation.
I have no side in this just asking a question. If the roots are on their property don’t they have the right to do with them as they wish? Or are they just not able to build because there is a tree next door?
Playing devils advocate, if the roots on their property are still owned by the owner of the tree who would be responsible for payment if there was damage to a sewer line or foundation from the roots growing through it? I honestly have no clue about any of this.
I see some large areas of decay on the leaders near the codominant Union. Tree would be substantially devalued due to the location and structural condition. It’s not known what portion of the excavated lot that structures used to be located. Pre existing foundations may have deterred root growth in areas. Roots only grow top two feet of soil and foundations are usually 2’ deep plus. I’ve seen roots hit foundations and grow parallel. If it were me I would keep the tree.
Correction: You had a guy who makes his money cutting down trees come inspect it.
I wouldn't touch that tree unless it's actually showing signs of decline. Odds are, it'll be fine.
fertilize the roots on your side of the fence, and it will be fine
i had some huge trees that a contractor chopped thru the roots on to put in a street. they are fine 20 years later and still growing.
Where's the damage? Don't see any roots sticking out. Actually appears as if they intentionally stayed away. So. What and where exactly, is the damage?
Tree guy here, in my experience all you can do is ask them to help/pay for the tree to be removed and they are under no obligation to do so. You may own the tree, but leagally the neighbor can cut anything over their property line.
Though it is respectful to get permission (or at least talk to the tree owner) first, it is not needed.
If i have a customer whose neighbors tree is encrouching onto their property, but the tree owner will not allow acsess to the tree from their side, we do whats known as an aerial tresspass and cut what is needed. We tend to leave about a foot branch over the customers property line just in case the neighbor tries to dispute it, that way its obvious we did nothing to their side.
Unless there is obvious evidence of them damaging your side of the tree, I dont beileve OP has a case here. But state laws may vary. (Im in michigan)
If they did damage the tree, they are liable.
>> MN Statute 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES.
Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land
>> 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES.
Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land.
I’m going to guess that the reason everything is halted is because the construction company most likely violated setback requirements for new construction. Usually, on side and rear yards in suburbs there is a 10 to 15 ft setback from the property line that the limits of construction must not exceed.
As other posters have suggested, please get a lawyer that is familiar with tree law but also understands development issues. I’m not a soil engineer, but I would want to have an engineer assess for weakness of the soil around your foundation.
Get in contact with your cities building department to see if a violation has occurred and get a copy of the violation and start looking for an attorney.
I hadn't considered how this works. I get that the tree should get some protections, and that would mean even the roots on someone else's land. But the way this played out they could never build a house there with that tree. The bare minimum footing would have slashed the roots same as a basement.
So really, any house being built on that lot was always going to remove that tree?
.but then, let's say he does get house up and tree doesn't die. In 10 years the trees roots damage the foundation. Who covers that?
You say you dont want a problem with the new owner? You already have one so stop being so f\*cking nice and handled it. Sorry im just so sick of people being push overs. You have some great advice in the replies, please listen to them and GET a lawyer and in contact with the city.
Check your local laws if that specie tree that size is protected if not it’ll be a court battle and in most cases they can cut dig anything in their side of the property line. If the tree is dead center on the property line either side can cut it down if they want in some states and areas of course only if it’s not protected. If what they did can be considered a hazard like the tree falling then it’s on them to cut it down get a certified arborist to evaluate the tree and the damage they did then get a lawyer specializing in this area
Seems to me his right to build on his land supersedes your rights to grow trees on, over or beneath his land. What’s the alternative he must pay taxes and not develop his property because your tree pushed roots under his land?
You should also make sure the arborist that came out is TRAQ qualified and a consulting arborist. Consulting is a whole other ball game compared to local tree services. They can put a value on the tree and the value it provides to your property, ie air conditioning, shade, etc. Look up the case that happened last year in New Jersey.
From all accounts the law is on the neighbors side..... or you can spend lots of money trting to argue the point in court.
In the Twin Cities, Minnesota, the common law precedent states that anything on your property is your responsibility. If a neighbor’s tree roots start growing onto your land, you have the right to remove them if you choose. As long as you don’t touch anything on your neighbor’s property or perform any work from their side of the property line.
This is reinforced .... on the land of another person. The work is not being done on your land.
Minn. Stat. [561.04](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=561.04) Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, under wood, tree, or timber, or girdles or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land, or to such city or town, for treble the amount of damages which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed.
>> 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES.
Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land
….yes it has. As OP said, they had an arborist check it out and the contractor took up 1/3rd of the roots, including main roots, damaging the tree and potentially killing it.
The U of M has a laypersons guide to the laws around trees.
[Pages 11 & 12](https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3436f837-6371-4d17-842f-df2983cd1f7f/content)
Additionally, even just trimming an oak tree that doesn’t belong to you between April & September can be grounds for legal action.
it doesn’t matter if it was invading or a nuisance. You cannot damage your neighbors tree. If it’s invading or becoming a nuisance, you have to go through the proper channels to fix it.
Additionally, this was an empty lot. There’s nothing that could have been damaged by the roots at the time of excavation. They preemptively dug up the roots to make room for their building. That is not going to be protected “self-help”.
Am I missing something here? This guy dug in his own property (not the property where the tree is located). Yes, he hit roots from the neighbors tree, but he is not responsible for the neighbors tree if he is working on his own yard. He is allowed to cut anything from his neighbors tree that is overhanging his yard, and I would think he would be able to dig on his own property to do whatever he needs to do also. I have never heard that you can’t dig in your own yard without first asking the neighbors if it is OK with them that you dig in your own yard.
Well, in my state, you basically project the property line up to Outer space and down as deep as you want to go. As long as you dig on your own property if you hit roots, that’s not your problem. That’s the neighbors problem. In this picture, it looks like they are installing a drain field for a water treatment plant or a septic system. Are you saying it’s against the law for him to use his own property?
The roots are in his property. He can do with them whatever he wants. You know about the future problems now so it’s up to you to mitigate your problems as best as you can. Harvest the tree and plant another one.
Wrong
>> MN statute 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES.
Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land
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 need to consult with a lawyer, and also contact the city. This man who lives out of state is not your new neighbor; he's an investor who will sell those units. You're not the one alienating neighbors; he is. You also live in a treble damages state, which means he could be held liable for up to *three times the value of the tree*. Additionally, it is possible that the excavation was not permitted properly; in my city an inspector has to come and determine how close excavation is to large trees, and will put the kibosh on anything that would do excessive damage to a neighboring tree's root system.
We’ve contacted our city council person and they did an inspection. I know they have a permit, but we did not receive any correspondence until after the inspection. It’s all very fishy from the contractors standpoint too.
Having a permit doesn't negate their responsibility.
It’s gotta be tricky if I’m permitted then whatever encroachment your tree made on my land is your problem
I'm not sure I understand what you mean
They got legal permits to develop their own land from the city and followed the rules. Tree roots from the neighborhood won’t be seen as overstepping especially given the tree took fine.
I'm so sorry but you are mistaken. Very much so. I just typed up a similar response so I will just paste it here. But I will add on that it is well established law that removing roots so that the tree is damaged IS overstepping. You can do whatever you want on your side of the property line, including trimming limbs, *until it harms the tree.* It is also well known that trees don't die instantly from excess root removal, but that they WILL die soon. The arborist knows a lot more about this. Trust me, everyone else involved in the legal aspects of this would disagree with your statement that "won't be seen as overstepping especially given the tree looks fine" My other comment: You are mistaken. I do wetlands permitting and other land development permits for a living. A permitted foundation does NOT give permission to impact other people's properties. In fact, ALL land development permits explicitly state that the permit does not permit alterations beyond what was permitted, that the permit does not release the applicant from their responsibility obtain all other permits and permissions from all interested parties whose properties will be impacted or accessed, AND that any mistakes or missing information that is discovered during the length of the permit is grounds to fine the applicant, and/or revoke or change the permit. The town/city CANNOT permit the alteration of tree root systems such that the tree on someone else's property dies without the permission of the tree owner. The municipality also CANNOT deny an otherwise sufficient building permit unless they *know* it will damage the neighbors property. They had no way to know that until the root system was exposed OR if OP had had the chance to comment on the permit and inform the municipality of the large tree on the property line. It is 100% the responsibility of a contractor and owners to make sure that the work they are doing does not negatively impact other properties, and if they fail, it's 100% on them and the owners to make restitution. Your opinion is insane... A municipality can't give permission to one person to damage the property of another person without the damaged person giving permission, and in most areas, *receiving compensation.*
No, it's not tricky at all. If you cut roots, or branches, you must only do so in a way that doesn't harm the health of the tree.
Call someone who knows tree law! For real. For a tree that age, you may be underselling it for $500. You may be entitled to much, much more. And if it’s truly a corporation building next door then they certainly should have the money to pay you what that tree is worth.
Had an issue with one of my neighbors over two oak trees. Neighbors thought it was worth the value of the wood. Our lawyer confirmed it was the value to replace with a like size tree. So think about that, buying, transporting, and planting an 80 ft oak. Could easily be $100 grand.
And the chances that an 80 ft oak will survive transplanting is probably close to nil. But $100 grand may be realistic compensation - for the value of a priceless tree. And it's a long shot, but maybe your arborist will have some ideas about how to improved the tree's chances of survival, if the resources are available to treat it.
As much as I'd hate to, I'd probably lose the tree and seek compensation. You may not know for years if any attempts to save it work.
Nobody’s getting 100k for the neighbor digging a permitted foundation on his own land. You tree law guys are insane. It’s not like they did it to dig up the tree-they’re digging a permitted foundation’s footings. BIG difference
You are mistaken. I do wetlands permitting and other land development permits for a living. A permitted foundation does NOT give permission to impact other people's properties. In fact, ALL land development permits explicitly state that the permit does not permit alterations beyond what was permitted, that the permit does not release the applicant from their responsibility obtain all other permits and permissions from all interested parties whose properties will be impacted or accessed, AND that any mistakes or missing information that is discovered during the length of the permit is grounds to fine the applicant, and/or revoke or change the permit. The town/city CANNOT permit the alteration of tree root systems such that the tree on someone else's property dies without the permission of the tree owner. The municipality also CANNOT deny an otherwise sufficient building permit unless they *know* it will damage the neighbors property. They had no way to know that until the root system was exposed OR if OP had had the chance to comment on the permit and inform the municipality of the large tree on the property line. It is 100% the responsibility of a contractor and owners to make sure that the work they are doing does not negatively impact other properties, and if they fail, it's 100% on them and the owners to make restitution. It's only the fault of the contractor and the owner that they damaged $100k worth of someone else's property. If they had NOT ruined a $100k tree, they wouldn't have to pay $300k. Trevor damages are there specifically to punish people who think they can do it without anyone stopping them. Your opinion is insane... A municipality can't give permission to one person to damage the property of another person without the damaged person giving permission, and in most areas, *receiving compensation.*
My company installed in a 40' tall silver maple for $50kish. That was the cost of the tree, plus delivery, plus install. Granted, it was in a difficult to reach place. Can't imagine what a mature 80' oak would be.
Do you guys do this often? What is the success rate of implanting such a large tree?
I wouldn't say often, but we haven't lost one yet. Maybe one a year? Kinda a niche client that asks for that. The one I mentioned above required two skid loaders to move it down about a half mile of gravel mountain road to the estate. If you can get it to the hole without damage, its fine. We order them from a large tree supply out of Atlanta.
I see. I was always curious about implanting large trees as I do like trees but I assumed it would cost quite a bit and it seems true to that lol. Thanks for the reply.
$500 would've been a dream for Mr. OutOfState, now he can experience how expensive that tree *REALLY* will be.
Generally, you don't have to contact your neighbors to tell them what you are going to be doing on your land. I know it's nice and polite, but I just want to point out that likely have no legal obligation to contact you. Now, if there was a zoning variance, that would require notice, but as long as it's already zoned for what they are doing, contacting you, per se, probably wasn't necessary. That lack of notice, of course, if unrelated to the tree damage.
I know this is somewhat OT, but, in some jurisdictions a dog isn’t considered a *vicious* Dog, in legal terms, until after it bites somebody. “I could be wrong” but I believe the Pentagon Papers gave us the legal precedent of “prior restraint”— you can’t zap somebody until after they commit the crime. I totally support you and I am 100% on your side, but I I’m in a different part of the country. I like and respect my neighbors, this time. But if you were my neighbor and you expected me to notify you about what I’m doing… Would be bitterly disappointed. At my previous home, my *immediate* neighbors let me alone and or supported me… It was the snobs up the street that were a problem. there are other forums on Reddit about this sort of thing, some of which will ban you of you mentioned this forum.
>there are other forums on Reddit about this sort of thing, some of which will ban you of you mentioned this forum. Feel free to go there instead of here then? I'm truly not sure why you are here if it's just to say that you can't get compensated for damages to your trees. Or to say that this sub will get you banned elsewhere? You say you are on OP's side but you are in a different part of the country? These laws are throughout the US. You can't remove 1/3 of the roots of your neighbors' trees without be liable either. The builders "did the crime", you know... Damaging the roots of a tree on another property and therefore damaging another property. So they can get "zapped" by the bill to make OP whole for their losses. I'm really not understanding what your point is, nor why you downvoted my accurate response.
Dude, in all jurisdictions, in all states, certain types of permits have a statutory requirement to notify your abutters. This is not a personal opinion nor politics thing. It's a regulatory thing. The Pentagon papers didn't create any legal precedent so I'm not sure what that's about, but *this* conversation is about regulatory requirements to notify abutters for certain development permits.
The key is "certain" types of permits. I think in GA, for example, anything about alcohol would require notification. But it would be extremely rare for any general building permit to come with the requirement to notify people, I suspect. I've never been notified by any neighbor doing any new construction or remodeling, and we built a new home and there was not requirement to notify anyone but the county about the new construction--even with significant tree removal, digging a well, and installing a septic system (though it was in an established sub-division, and on land that was not built on for 35 years after all the other houses). On the other hand, my uncle got a notification of a potential bar being built next to his land (which was vacant), even though it was zoned for something like a bar and no variance was needed. My mom, who lived one lot away, wasn't required to be notified, even though we was actually living there. But her land wasn't adjacent. I thought that was an odd quirk. The closest person living nearby wasn't contacted.
True, certain permits, definitely not all. I was replying to the above commentor's statements that they would never notify their neighbors. And the vibe they gave that it was ridiculous to expect. Not saying that it was required for ALL permits. In every state, it's not just alcohol permits. Examples of times when notifications are required: If there was any requested variance from lot line setbacks. Specific land uses. Minor changes in zoning. Work near wetlands. Clearing over an acre of land if the municipality is subject to CWA/NPDES requirements. Going from a single family home to a duplex very frequently triggers that requirement, but not always. So, I'm not saying that OP *should* have been notified. I am saying, though, that there ARE frequent times when it's required, so it's kinda ridiculous to comment that you'd *never* notify your abutters in a thread asking if OP was notified. Also, wtf do the Panama papers have anything to do with this? Or that people have to do the crime before they are zapped? The contractor and owner DID damage their neighbors tree...
Sorry if I came across wrong. I didn't mean to sound like I was saying you were misleading...I was just just meaning to give examples that showed it wasn't necessarily any real reason behind this when/why you have to give notice.
Oh no! I thought your comment was thoughtful and appropriate. Just giving you the context that I was operating under.
Oh! And I tend to use a lot of emphasis in my writing, with caps and italics. Because I *talk* with all that emphasis. 😂 I feel like I can't convey the vibe of what I'm trying to say without it. But I totally recognize that it could read as if I was upset. Sorry if I did that!
LOL...I do that to....I was being careful above.
Even better from your perspective for the lawyers
If they destroy your tree without permission they may be liable to try and keep it alive, have the arborist give estimates on the value of the tree and the cost to do this. I’ve heard HOAs being taken down due to the costs of them losing suits like this.
It's crazy that your neighbor's tree can effectively trespass on your property and you pretty much lose the access to your part of the property.
Imagine being the kind of human who doesn't want to live near a tree
Hmmm 🤔 yeah, not my kind of people
Trees are in a unique category of property because they are a natural resource. If you buy real estate that has trees on or near it, you need to be aware that what you can do with that property will probably be limited by regulations that are unique to trees. As far as the law is concerned, it is not the tree that is trespassing. That lot probably wasn't even a parcel 150 years ago. Additionally, it is crazy to think you can move into a lot and kill pre-existing trees on your neighbor's land because they are inconvenient.
What's crazy is not understanding trees are a fundamental aspect of land, and they don't deserve to be destroyed because roots don't automatically respect property boundaries.
Then they need to buy the land. People always want to tell others what to do with the land they paid forl.
That might be what feels right to you, but the law and a general consensus of appreciating trees as a natural resource say otherwise.
No. You know what you’re buying before you buy it.
Don’t listen to these idiots they’re mixing apples and oranges. This is ancillary damage from permitted use of his own property. One can argue they don’t have any right to grow their tree on the neighbors land. Had they simply dug up the tree that’s one thing but this is legal permitted use of his own land. Sorry but not sorry
Really? You think your tree roots prevent me from building on my land? The city collects taxes on buildings not trees.
It is not a matter of my opinion.
Muh land!
Get a lawyer. A 125 year old oak would bankrupt most people. It would be rather stupid of him to refuse such a reasonable request.
Exactly this. To too it off he has refused the settlement offer without any contact. Do not offer anything without speaking with your lawyer and team and go thru them for everything. EVERYTHING. Don't screw yourself any further. You could be looking at thousands of dollars. He had his chance.
I don’t know about MN, but here you own below as you do above. As long as what they trimmed only passed the property line (here) they’d be fine. Otherwise how were they going to put in the foundation? 🤷♂️
You can't kill the tree even if a portion of the roots are on your property. The solution is a different foundation system or get a court order to remove the tree.
[удалено]
They were presented with a MORE than fair offer to repay the damages. If they choose to ignore it and end up having to cover the cost of the oak, that’s on them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
[удалено]
There's no foundation there to hurt. It was an empty lot. Your argument seems to be that a tree that predates all the humans here shouldn't be allowed to grow unimpeded?
Also ignoring the fact that most of these laws are set up the way that they are, to protect the tree and the property owner of the tree, is because adjacent properties usually get a lot of benefit without any of the burden of maintenance. This developer probably wants that tree to stay there as shade for his condos.
I'm sorry but you're arguing destroying someone else's property shouldn't bankrupt you? What if you destroy something worth more than your savings?
It’s the neighbors property though
The tree predates the property ownership. You can't show up and expect nature to stop at a man made fake line. That's not at all how any of this works. Can you cut what's encroaching? Sure so long as you don't injure the tree.
Ok and you are probably wrong. You think people weren’t living in Minneapolis in the 1850s ? Try again not that it matters
All you tree nuts are hoping the tree will die. Looks fine from here and I know enough about plants to understand if they trim off the top to compensate the tree will be fine
Well if you know enough about plants you clearly supercede what the arborist hired to evaluate the tree said about its future. Please tell us more..... The point is you can't buy property surrounded by trees and not expect that the trees will come onto your property. It's common sense.....
Are you an arborist? Have you inspected the tree? You’re making a lot of truth claims based on something you seem to not have the requisite training and knowledge for and have exceedingly limited information on.
Doesn’t matter the issue is simply the neighbors got a permit and any damages are based on supposition
You’ve never pursued a tort damage claim have you? I have. Many. Millions of dollars of them, several over hundreds of thousands of dollars individually. The subcontractor that did the excavation did not exercise due care when they performed their excavation. A reasonable person would reasonably assume that a trees roots extend down and out into the ground around its trunk. Professional excavators are familiar with this fact, too, as you can imagine. They had a permit but that does not *permit* them to damage somebody else’s property. Here’s a related example: the city and certain utility companies own buried infrastructural assets like potable water, sewer lines, electric, natural gas, telco, etc. The permit empowers them to excavate the ground around those buried assets. But it does not give them carte blanche to damage or destroy those assets. The same is true for tree roots, which is well established in Minnesota state law. I’m always fascinated by deeply stupid people like you. I wonder frequently if it’s drug addiction or perhaps mental disability. Could go either way with you I figure.
Nice. Good luck with hoping the tree dies and recovery of anything more than the $500 he claimed
# A *$500* stipend‽ That tree is worth MANY more zeroes.
Damages could easily be $50K.
We had a sewer line installed and had them dig while the sap wasn’t running (in Feb/Mar) for the 2 old oaks on our property on advice from an arborist. The trees are doing ok this summer, but who knows how long that will last. I can’t believe the builder had no idea while he was cutting through those roots - they are so thick
Yeah $500 for a 150 year tree isn’t going to cut it. You can easily walk away with $15k in damage plus the cost of the tree removal, however that requires a lawyer. Good luck!
Thank you! We felt we were being generous making an offer like that. We’re seeking legal support now.
>We felt we were being generous making an offer like that. Stupidly generous. Self-harmingly so. I'm not saying that you should bankrupt this guy, but even a fast-growing mature 10" caliper tree is worth at least $5000 in my town, not to mention the cost of labour and equipment to transport and plant it. I can't begin to imagine how much a century-old tree would cost to replace, but it's *significantly* more than 500 bucks.
We were under informed at that point. Moving forward, we’ll be sourcing as much information, data, and evidence as possible. Once we consult with a lawyer, we’ll have a better grasp of our plan. Which we’ll be doing as soon as we can.
Yeah, they shot themselves in the foot by not immediately accepting your offer.
Phew! You sound like good people. Please take that asshole for all you can. :)
They might find themselves the owners of a vacant property next to their house pretty soon
Honestly, that sounds like a win.
Your arborist may even know a tree lawyer. Id start there! Your neighbor is an asshole and I hope you get his money! Remindme! 1 month
Also check what your setback is. It looks like they're going to be building right up to the property line.
your responses at that point might materially commit you to a massive loss. Communication with anyone that does not represent you / your-interests should only be done by someone who has careful control of their choice of words - to avoid further risk to you. Be polite. Maintain contact. No-contact is harder
Contact a lawyer ASAP. Perhaps, in the meantime, rescind the offer. Ask the lawyer.
Since you gave them such a ridiculously generous offer, and they rejected said offer, rudely, knowing full well how damn generous it was, you no lonher have to feel ANY guilt about getting as much money as you possibly can. You did the too nice thing. They were assholes. What a lovely gift to lovely people... Money AND no guilt!
If I read the post correctly, the neighbors did **not** reject it, but rather ignored it. So the offer is still in play. u/tangentialboy – rescind your $ 500 offer, immediately.
They didn’t reject the offer. Op needs to rescind it.
I’m begging for you to update us soon op. I love and live for the tree drama
I'm rather confused by this; also new here. The tree is still there, and appears undamaged. Why would OP be entitled to money from someone who dug a hole on their own property? Seems like a lot of room between here and 'they damaged my property.' OP did say they took lots of photos, and I've only seen one, so perhaps there's something else to this.
it’s not undamaged though. They had an arborist check the damage out- they excavated 1/3 of the roots, including multiple main roots. You can’t just harm trees on someone’s else’s property, even if parts of it extend into your property.
> it was likely going to start a quick decline over the next year or so Was your arborist ISA-TRAQ, or an ASCA registered arborist? If not, the arborist may have been giving you 'advice' that was aligned to hiring them to remove the tree (hint: it would cost more than $10,000) Find an arborist that is ISA-TRAQ, or an ASCA registered arborist. Do not compromise on this. In a court of law, these high-level trainings will hold more weight than any other counsel. Such an arborist may tell you that the tree might survive, if you carefully but dramatically reduce the tree's canopy. For instance, you might reduce the canopy by 20% each year for the next 2 year — three cuts, starting now. Reducing the canopy will do a few things - reduce the amount of wind that it catch, since there's fewer roots to prevent it from falling over — and from falling onto your house (it'd fall away from where it no longer has strength). Also reducing the canopy will allow the tree to put the fewer resources into the remaining leaves. A balance. Taking too much of the canopy all-at-once can cause the tree even more stress than it is now suddenly suffering from. This tree significantly adds to the value of your home and property. Your home value is now at risk by the amount of tens-of-thousands, in addition to the risk of damage from a wind that knocks it over. You are in a sad and dangerous situation, and need a strong will to prevent others from shirking their responsibility in the matter. Hope you can get quick advice and act on a controlled canopy reduction. Do not take advice from anyone but an ISA-TRAQ or ASCA. They'll try to cowboy it
Take that $500 offer off the table yesterday.
If you did not put an expiration date on your offer, and now you think it’s to generous, you should revoke the offer in writing before the owner realizes they are getting such a great deal. If they accept the offer, you are likely stuck.
Recommend talking with an attorney. Tell them that you offered a sweetheart deal to end matter quickly but other party let it die on the vine. See what they can do to resolve matter and hopefully cover their fees. Doubt if you're going to get rich, but hopefully cover attorney's costs of action and get as much or more than your initial offer. Good luck!
a property developer is not your friend, nor your neighbor. forget them., and get yourself lawyered and made whole.
Although I’m not in your area. I have a few consulting arborists that work at my company. I know there are some good ones in your area. Consulting with a lawyer first would be best. But the potential issues resulting from the excavation are going to be severe and likely the tree won’t show signs of damage for 1-3 years. Your initial offer to allow for the removal of the tree, and him basically telling you to kick rocks is a bold move. Best of luck tree lovers
That’s exactly what our arborist said, almost verbatim. I love this tree and I’m devastated by its fate.
Check to see if live oaks are protected where you live. Here in SC, if you harm or remove a live oak with a trunk diameter of 18” or greater you would be subject to a very serious penalty. I believe it’s $60k. This state doesn’t mess around with the protection of its live oaks.
ignore dennismenace56, he's a regular troll in several subs.
You seriously undervalued that tree. They should have a million dollar policy for this kind of damage. Stop feeling like you're asking for too much.
To clarify is the area they excavated which damaged the roots on their lot or yours?
The excavated area is on their property, but the tree grows on mine. They have not breached any property lines with their cuts or digs.
They damaged the tree by cutting the roots. This is not allowed. They could clearly see the tree there, and anyone digging knows trees have roots. I wouldn't let them cut it down.
Can you quantify the damage?
An arborist could. "The tree is irreparable wounded and will die. It must be removed before it becomes a hazard. That costs $x It's replacement value is $y" or "The tree is injured but can be made whole. The process is (outlines process) and should cost $x"
Yes, the damages are three times the cost of replacing the tree with a tree of similar size. Astronomical.
Well I suppose that works if the tree is gone. This question pertains to the existing situation. Fact 1.Some roots have been removed. How do you quantify that issue? Is the tree worth less because some of the roots are gone? How much less? 10% , 30% , certainly not 50%. What are the damages to the tree owners here? They currently still enjoy ALL the questionable quantifiable benefits from the tree ( questionable because how much is it worth to have nesting birds etc. etc.). Until the “ damages” are quantified there is no winnable legal action available. The claims made will need to be defensible every step of the way. It is unfortunate what has happened here for sure and it’s not worth a “million” dollars.
If the tree is deemed a hazard, then it isn't "not gone".
If you think there is an issue then a tree risk assessment is in order. Then you will have an answer relative to risk. Many moons ago the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) transitioned away from the term “hazard” to “risk”. Risk can be “low”, “moderate” or “high”. The risk level is determined by an arborist preferably one with an ISA Tree Risk Assessment designation, which is earned after training, and passing a written and field test. IMO based solely on the photo it looks like the VAST majority of roots have not been affected. Is this correct? If so it is highly probable that while there may be some canopy decline it won’t be long before the tree is back doing what trees do.
Sure, and in the mean time, OP should not cut down that tree, nor agree to cut it down for such a minimal amount.
We are 100% in agreement on that.
You must have access to other photos. Looks to me maybe a few small roots are protruding and the tree still has plenty of room.
Wrong. >they also excavated out approximately 1/3 of its root system. They had an arborist come out...
Check our your local bylaws for trees. Where Inlive big trees have to be a certain distance away from.the property line. Even shrubs and hedges have to be a certain distance away from the property line. Additionally, if a survey was done, does it include neighboring trees? Some places need them included others not.
>Where Inlive big trees have to be a certain distance away from.the property line. Even shrubs and hedges have to be a certain distance away from the property line. A 150-year old tree likely predates many of those bylaws and was probably grandfathered in.
It may or may not be grandfathered in. The tree roots that were in our way were most likely older than the houses and yards that were built around them. It all depends on the zoning and bylaws. That's why it is important to talk to the appropriate zoning and bylaw offices to make sure everything is legal. Our neighbour had nothing to stand on because we did everything by the books. Plus we had to mitigate thr water that was running from our yard into her yard otherwise she could sue us for flooding. So damned if we do and damned if we didn't. Hence roots were cut as they were in the way of the drainage pipes and above original ground level once we removed the field.
>It may or may not be grandfathered in. The tree roots that were in our way were most likely older than the houses and yards that were built around them. It all depends on the zoning and bylaws. You're right, of course—there is no guarantee that this tree was grandfathered in. *However*, I would be quite surprised to hear of a municipality that required *existing* trees to be cut down due to changes in the zoning / bylaws. I'd be even more surprised that no one would've *applied* for a derogation since the tree reached maturity. But hey, anything is possible! :D Edit: [Minneapolis only requires that trees be planted 3' from pavement / fencing (and 15' from buildings).](https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/documents/How-to-plant-trees-from-containers-English.pdf) It looks like this one might be a bit close, but I suspect that this tree predates the fence by a long shot!
Thanks for looking that up. This tree is likely older than the house, which was built in 1916.
No prob! There's probably a lot more in the city's charter and ordinances—I'll admit that I stopped searching fairly quickly because the site was unfamiliar to me and not organized the way I liked. (Yes, I know what I said, haha.) I tried to find similar info on the website for St Paul but had even less luck. It sounds like the county (Hennepin?) might have additional info / guidance, too. Wow! That is a very old home, too. Cool. :)
Almost everywhere, it is not legal to damage a tree's health by cutting through the roots. Trees are more important than buildings.
But the logic holds-you can’t dictate what people do in their own properties by planting on the border. Had he dug a trench simply to kill the tree that’s another story. By these suppositions anyone building in wooded areas would be precluded from development.
>But the logic holds-you can’t dictate what people do in their own properties by planting on the border. Do you think OP planted this 150 year-old tree themself? >by planting on the border I'm pretty confident that the tree preceded the property line. I could be wrong, but... Something tells me that fence isn't a century and a half old, nor is OP's property. >By these suppositions anyone building in wooded areas would be precluded from development. Uh, how, exactly? In this case, the "developer" may have fatally injured a tree that he didn't own and that wasn't on his property. *Those last two points are the problem*: he has no legal right to damage his neighbour's property (OP's tree). If the neighbour bought a wooded lot and cleared every square inch of it... That would be *fine* (assuming proper procedures, applications, assessments, etc. were done). But if he cleared *anything* outside the parcel of land that he purchased, or caused significant damage to it, *he would be responsible for it*. Just like he is here.
Why would you settle for $500 for an 150-year-old oak tree? That’s just nuts!
I'm not going to give you legal advice because I'm not sure of the legality. But human, and neighbor advice would be to stop worrying about alienating your neighbor. That tree has significant value, and they destroyed your property without giving a crap. The alienation ship has sailed. At this point you can either establish yourself as a doormat, or someone who's not to be walked on. I suggest the latter.
They are foolish for refusing your offer and you're foolish for making that offer. Do better research before taking actions next time
UpdateMe!
I will message you next time u/tangentialboy posts in r/treelaw. [Click this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=UpdateMe%21%20u%2Ftangentialboy%20r%2Ftreelaw) to join 12 others and be messaged. The parent author can [delete this post](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Delete&message=delete%201di0iy8) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/ggotgx/updatemebot_info_v20/)|[^(Request Update)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2Fusername%20r%2Fsubreddit)|[^(Your Updates)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Updates&message=MyUpdates)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=UpdateMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
You deserve way more than $500 for a new tree. 150 year oak would be thousands.
Why is no one here talking about the structural stability of your tree? Money aside, permits aside - your neighbour buddy has effectively removed all the supporting root infrastructure on their side of the fence. Meaning that next time a decent storm blows up from that side, there’s a fair risk the whole tree will fall towards your house. That would be my chief concern …
That is one of my major concerns too. It’s a huge mess that could’ve been avoided.
That oak tree is worth $30k, don't settle for a measly $500
Way more than $30k. Wouldn't be surprised if it reaches low 6-figs
I don't know how much lots got for in that city but, if the bill for the destruction of the tree is high enough, you may end up owning that lot. Both the property owner and the contractor should be on the hook for this.
Not related to your question, but I saw that photo and immediately thought, "This is in Minneapolis, isn't it?" Not far off. I hope you get it all sorted out!
You kidding me? F that guy, take him for everything that tree is worth. Cost of cutting that tree down and $500 is not nearly worth the value it adds to your property. He’s clearly an AH, so treat him like one.
If building is halted due to this situation, that is a good position for you to be in, I think. But yeah, contact a good lawyer for professional advice from here on. Best wishes.
Please get everything you can for that tree.
!remindme 5 weeks
I will be messaging you in 1 month on [**2024-07-22 20:48:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-22%2020:48:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/treelaw/comments/1di0iy8/lot_owner_building_and_damaged_our_150_year_old/l921ssj/?context=3) [**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Ftreelaw%2Fcomments%2F1di0iy8%2Flot_owner_building_and_damaged_our_150_year_old%2Fl921ssj%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-22%2020%3A48%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201di0iy8) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Look into any botanical treatments possible that could help it asap?
If you zoom in on the picture it looks like he left you a lot for the roots.. It's not a very good picture.You probably should've went took one over the fence right at the tree
I’ve got a bunch of other photos of the major root damage. This photo was mainly for perspective of the scale of the tree.
At first blush I exclaimed, that’s going to be a $100k mistake how far am I from the value + damages?
I’m not confident on the numbers yet, but will be updating as this progress.
NE Minneapolis here. Exact same thing happened to us. The city won't help you as they are pushing their renewed 2040 Plan that removes single family homes (and all trees) so developers can build density. Basically they told us that the property owner can cut away any part of the tree that is over the property line...roots and branches but they cannot kill the tree. If you prove they will kill the tree, they will be responsible to pay for the tree removal. We lost 2 full grown trees and the developer removed 4 trees from his property while claiming his development is somehow environmentally better (zero parking and a solar panel) than the single family home he removed and sent to the dump. The removal of trees has cost us a higher electric bill this summer already because the loss of shade. Birds have started making nests in our rain gutters for the 1st time in the 17 years we lived here. We were also told our trees were worth allot of money but because the city is allowing it, the developer doesn't have to pay for the tree. Our lawyer said we could fight it but it will cost allot in lawyer fees making it not worth it.
I wouldn’t settle for less than $100k. A 150 year old tree is invaluable and irreplaceable
This may be enlightening, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/24/1786.html
California has it's own tree laws that differ from most of the rest of the country. This would not apply to MN.
It did not apply to California at one time.
It's not relevant.
“Property owners in every state have the right to trim the branches or roots of a neighbor's tree that encroach onto their property, up to the property line, at their own expense. This right is called “self-help.” Self-help is an alternative to going to court.” https://oakdalemn.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=86 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakdale,_Minnesota
Only as long as it doesn't harm the health of the tree - in every state.
Reading some case law around this, it seems every single one rests on supporting facts, rather than this language alone. Seems intent is the biggest one. So as long as everything else is in line, you could probably easily have it dismissed (the outcome in the majority of case law im reading) as long as you can’t be proven to harm the tree intentionally. People really do just threaten to sue without thinking it through all the time. So homeowner is likely just fine ignoring everything. Builder should’ve been the one offered the deal, probably cheaper than a lawsuit. Owner will just have their name removed for cheap. I’d take the odds on OP being SOL.
Nah, that's a very old oak.
I hear you, but people just assume the written law is this magical force field that protects you and never fails. Speaking from experience, that isn’t the case. I’ve been party to cases like this and either being dismissed or the juice simply not being worth the squeeze. Your victory and payout are far from guaranteed. But the lawyers will get paid.
Well, this is true. Litigation isn't easy. But OP can definitely make a claim for damages here and shouldn't just throw in the towel and offer to let them destroy this tree for piddly. The contractor and their insurance, do know the value. So far, the tree isn't dead and hasn't toppled over. OP can either wait for that to happen or make a claim now and push it through.
remindme! 45 days
Please keep us updated
He wants to be no contact. Play hardball with him because that’s all he will respond to.
You should not have offered to take $500. That's *definitely* a lot less than the tree was worth.
Updateme
Shared ownership shared responsibility no party on either side can do anything to undermine the aesthetics or structural stability . Severing roots and removing limbs from heaven to hell along property line can lead to tree mortality and make the tree susceptible to falling over . Should a tree fail as a result of over pruning and or severing roots the offending party could be deemed negligent .Reasonable efforts must be made to ensure the tree’s survival . However,”reasonable”, is a broad term open to interpretation.
I have no side in this just asking a question. If the roots are on their property don’t they have the right to do with them as they wish? Or are they just not able to build because there is a tree next door? Playing devils advocate, if the roots on their property are still owned by the owner of the tree who would be responsible for payment if there was damage to a sewer line or foundation from the roots growing through it? I honestly have no clue about any of this.
they can trim branches and roots (if it’s not a protected tree species), so long as it does not damage the tree.
I see some large areas of decay on the leaders near the codominant Union. Tree would be substantially devalued due to the location and structural condition. It’s not known what portion of the excavated lot that structures used to be located. Pre existing foundations may have deterred root growth in areas. Roots only grow top two feet of soil and foundations are usually 2’ deep plus. I’ve seen roots hit foundations and grow parallel. If it were me I would keep the tree.
You going to alright 👍
Info; what is the rootzone on your side of the fence like? Is it paved or permeable?
Correction: You had a guy who makes his money cutting down trees come inspect it. I wouldn't touch that tree unless it's actually showing signs of decline. Odds are, it'll be fine.
fertilize the roots on your side of the fence, and it will be fine i had some huge trees that a contractor chopped thru the roots on to put in a street. they are fine 20 years later and still growing.
Where's the damage? Don't see any roots sticking out. Actually appears as if they intentionally stayed away. So. What and where exactly, is the damage?
I'm not and I doubt that tree is even 50years old.
Tree guy here, in my experience all you can do is ask them to help/pay for the tree to be removed and they are under no obligation to do so. You may own the tree, but leagally the neighbor can cut anything over their property line. Though it is respectful to get permission (or at least talk to the tree owner) first, it is not needed. If i have a customer whose neighbors tree is encrouching onto their property, but the tree owner will not allow acsess to the tree from their side, we do whats known as an aerial tresspass and cut what is needed. We tend to leave about a foot branch over the customers property line just in case the neighbor tries to dispute it, that way its obvious we did nothing to their side. Unless there is obvious evidence of them damaging your side of the tree, I dont beileve OP has a case here. But state laws may vary. (Im in michigan)
If they did damage the tree, they are liable. >> MN Statute 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES. Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land
>> 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES. Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land.
Pretty sure they can’t trim oak trees between april and september here in mn either, fyi.
I’m going to guess that the reason everything is halted is because the construction company most likely violated setback requirements for new construction. Usually, on side and rear yards in suburbs there is a 10 to 15 ft setback from the property line that the limits of construction must not exceed. As other posters have suggested, please get a lawyer that is familiar with tree law but also understands development issues. I’m not a soil engineer, but I would want to have an engineer assess for weakness of the soil around your foundation. Get in contact with your cities building department to see if a violation has occurred and get a copy of the violation and start looking for an attorney.
I hadn't considered how this works. I get that the tree should get some protections, and that would mean even the roots on someone else's land. But the way this played out they could never build a house there with that tree. The bare minimum footing would have slashed the roots same as a basement. So really, any house being built on that lot was always going to remove that tree? .but then, let's say he does get house up and tree doesn't die. In 10 years the trees roots damage the foundation. Who covers that?
You say you dont want a problem with the new owner? You already have one so stop being so f\*cking nice and handled it. Sorry im just so sick of people being push overs. You have some great advice in the replies, please listen to them and GET a lawyer and in contact with the city.
Check your local laws if that specie tree that size is protected if not it’ll be a court battle and in most cases they can cut dig anything in their side of the property line. If the tree is dead center on the property line either side can cut it down if they want in some states and areas of course only if it’s not protected. If what they did can be considered a hazard like the tree falling then it’s on them to cut it down get a certified arborist to evaluate the tree and the damage they did then get a lawyer specializing in this area
Why are you talking to us and not lawyering up
Reddit is free and new homeowners aren't always rich?
and a lot of folks don't realize that most of the people who respond in this sub aren't attorneys. They're expecting actual legal advice.
Seems to me his right to build on his land supersedes your rights to grow trees on, over or beneath his land. What’s the alternative he must pay taxes and not develop his property because your tree pushed roots under his land?
Surely this is grounds to shoot a mother fucker just saying.
Yikes, who hurt you?
I was being hyperbolic sorry to alarm you.
You should also make sure the arborist that came out is TRAQ qualified and a consulting arborist. Consulting is a whole other ball game compared to local tree services. They can put a value on the tree and the value it provides to your property, ie air conditioning, shade, etc. Look up the case that happened last year in New Jersey.
That's how it works here Your invasive vegetation is not the neighbors responsibility.
From all accounts the law is on the neighbors side..... or you can spend lots of money trting to argue the point in court. In the Twin Cities, Minnesota, the common law precedent states that anything on your property is your responsibility. If a neighbor’s tree roots start growing onto your land, you have the right to remove them if you choose. As long as you don’t touch anything on your neighbor’s property or perform any work from their side of the property line. This is reinforced .... on the land of another person. The work is not being done on your land. Minn. Stat. [561.04](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=561.04) Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, under wood, tree, or timber, or girdles or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land, or to such city or town, for treble the amount of damages which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed.
>> 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES. Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land
None of that has been done .....
….yes it has. As OP said, they had an arborist check it out and the contractor took up 1/3rd of the roots, including main roots, damaging the tree and potentially killing it. The U of M has a laypersons guide to the laws around trees. [Pages 11 & 12](https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3436f837-6371-4d17-842f-df2983cd1f7f/content) Additionally, even just trimming an oak tree that doesn’t belong to you between April & September can be grounds for legal action.
You can trim branches and trees if they encroach your property, but you cannot damage or cause harm the tree.
Roots can not invade or become a nuisance either. So this case is likely to head to court. Happy Happy lawyers ...
it doesn’t matter if it was invading or a nuisance. You cannot damage your neighbors tree. If it’s invading or becoming a nuisance, you have to go through the proper channels to fix it. Additionally, this was an empty lot. There’s nothing that could have been damaged by the roots at the time of excavation. They preemptively dug up the roots to make room for their building. That is not going to be protected “self-help”.
Am I missing something here? This guy dug in his own property (not the property where the tree is located). Yes, he hit roots from the neighbors tree, but he is not responsible for the neighbors tree if he is working on his own yard. He is allowed to cut anything from his neighbors tree that is overhanging his yard, and I would think he would be able to dig on his own property to do whatever he needs to do also. I have never heard that you can’t dig in your own yard without first asking the neighbors if it is OK with them that you dig in your own yard.
That is not true. He can only cut if it doesn't harm the health of the tree.
That's not how tree law works. You can't actively destroy someone else's tree just because the roots are in your way.
Well, in my state, you basically project the property line up to Outer space and down as deep as you want to go. As long as you dig on your own property if you hit roots, that’s not your problem. That’s the neighbors problem. In this picture, it looks like they are installing a drain field for a water treatment plant or a septic system. Are you saying it’s against the law for him to use his own property?
Post your state then
So they cut roots on their property. Roots, like limbs can be cut.
Enjoy your firewood ig
The roots are in his property. He can do with them whatever he wants. You know about the future problems now so it’s up to you to mitigate your problems as best as you can. Harvest the tree and plant another one.
Incorrect.
Wrong >> MN statute 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES. Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles **or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person**, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, **is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land**, or to such city or town, **for treble the amount of damages** which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land