boundary tree question

[mrsjoolie]

We bought our house 2 years ago. In our neighborhood, there are no fences, just nice (usually) neighbors. Our next door neighbor came over the first day to tell me that this big oak tree sits on the property line and they expect us to share the cost of trimming. Fine. We're nice folks. Now, she's decided that the tree is on her property entirely and she wants to cut it down. I can't afford a $700 survey and an attorney, which is what it's going to boil down to. My children are all very prone to sunburns, being fair complexioned, and I've already fought off cancer. If this tree comes down, we will have no shade at all in the back yard. I should mention that the tree predates ownership for either of us. Oh, and I do have a stake that marks the property on the other side...I've measured it off, according to what the county says the measurements are, and we own about 1/4 of the tree. I've looked all over the net and cannot find any information about this sort of thing in IL. It all concerns what to do about your neighbors tree putting leaves in your yard...I don't mind the leaves! And I love the tree. What should I do next? Today, she said that she intends to cut it down promptly and I said "Fine. I'll plant 15 more solely on MY property!" It's not that she's too old to rake the leaves or too poor to pay someone. She just needs her medication adjusted (in my opinion!) Help!

 

[NYClex]

This question comes up very often. Usually it is very important to be sure exactly where the tree grows, where it was planted (for example it was planted fully on one side of the boundary and only later grew over it or if it was planted right on the boundary line) and the like.

But there are Illinois cases that might support your view, one of them is Ridge v. Blaha, 166 Ill. App. 3d 662

It affirms that a boundary line tree may be jointly owned by the adjoining landowners. It is the well-established rule that a tree standing on the division line between adjoining proprietors, so 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. The court said:

"Under the principles set forth above, we hold that plaintiffs have a protectable interest in the elm tree, since part of its trunk grows on their property. The extent of this interest has been described as "equal, in the first instance, to, or perhaps rather identical with, the part which is on [their] land; in the next place embracing [***13] the right to demand that the [owners] of the other portion shall so use [their] part as not unreasonably to injure or destroy the whole." ( Robinson v. Clapp (1985), 65 Conn. 365, 380, 32 A. 939, 942.) Given this interest, the trial court should have enjoined defendants from destroying the elm. "An injunction may be issued to restrain a threatened removal or destruction of a tree on a boundary line where no sufficient reason for the commission of the act appears * * *." (Emphasis in original.) (2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners § 57 (1972); see also Patterson v. Oye (1983), 214 Neb. 167, 170, 333 N.W.2d 389, 391.) "

More about that here: http://www.dcba.org/brief/novissue/1999/art31199.htm You might print this out and show it to your neighbor.

I cannot evaluate the case you have, because I would have to know the details and this cannot be done here, but it at least sounds to me that you might have a good case for an injunction against the neighbor.