Monday, June 22, 2015

Property owner has absolute right to trim encroaching branches and roots from a neighbor’s tree.

Alvarez v. Katz, 2015 VT 86 (19-Jun-2015)

EATON, J. This is a case of protracted litigation, with extensive motion practice, regarding the proposed removal by defendants of the encroaching roots and branches of a maple tree owned by plaintiffs.. The superior court found it more likely than not that removal of 50% of the tree’s roots and branches as contemplated by defendants would result in the premature death of the tree.. The court enjoined trimming of more than 25% of the roots and branches of the tree. We vacate the injunction and reaffirm Vermont’s long-standing right of a property owner to trim branches and roots from an encroaching tree without regard to the impact that such trimming may have on the health of the tree.

Vermont has long recognized ownership of property to include the ownership of that which is below the ground and that which is attached overhead. The right of a property owner to trim non-boundary trees back to the property line has been clear for at least the last 100 years. Cobb v. W. Union Tel. Co., 90 Vt. 342, 344, 98 A. 758, 759 (1916) (“[I]t is a sound principle that where a tree stands wholly on the ground of one and so is his tree, any part of it which overhangs the land of an adjoining owner may be cut off by the latter at the division line.”). This rule applies despite the likely fatal effect the proposed root-and-branch cutting would have on the encroaching tree,

A tree standing on the division line between adjoining proprietors, such that “the line passes through the trunk or body of the tree above the surface of the soil, is the common property of both proprietors as tenants in common.” Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115, 116-17 (1865). Neither may hew down his part of the tree to the property line and destroy the part belonging to the other. Id. at 117. The property line here does not pass through the trunk or body of the tree. The superior court was incorrect that this tree is “effectively” a line tree.

No comments:

Post a Comment