Neighbor refuses to let me cut MY tree down

[Rabbit]

I have a large tree that is 12 inches from the property line on my side. It overhangs both mine and the neighbors home. I want to remove the tree because it is damaging my foundation. When I informed the neighbor about my intentions he became furious. He doesnt want me to cut it down because it gives him shade for his house and yard. I told him It was damaging my home but he didnt seem to care. He told me he didnt want anyone in his yard while cutting down the tree. What can I do? It will be cut down from the "air" on a crane. Does being in the air over his house and yard constitute trespassing? Would the company be allowed to cut the tree down on the neighbors property without his consent? I find it hard to believe that the neighbor can force me into spending over $7000 in foundation repairs just to keep a tree that will cost $2000 to cut down.

 

[NYClex]

Yes, any unauthorized invasion of the immediate air space above someone's property is trespass. You should try to get the tree cut down without touching the neighbor's property or air space above it. Since the tree is rooted totally on your land it should be your property.

 

[Rabbit]

I find that unbelieveable. Our houses are about 15 feet apart and the tree is maybe 11 feet from the corner of his house and like 6 from mine. I cant believe he has the power to dictate weather or not I can cut a nusance tree down or not. Whats worse is if that tree fell I would be liable. I am just trying to eliminate my liability. What is the penalty if the company cut it down anyway? I think if he called the police all they would say is let them finish the job. Its not like the company could go to jail for 50 years. What do you guys think could happen?

 

[NYClex]

well, it is not that he has the right to keep you from cutting down your tree. He has the right not to allow anyone onto his property. If you find a way to cut down the tree without trespassing onto his property he cannot do anything to stop you from doing it.

The law protects everyone's property rights. Everyone has a right to be left alone and not have any strangers or neighbors running around in his yard. The only exception is an emergency: if your house is on fire and the firefighters have to run into your neighbor's yard they still are trespassing, but they have a legal justification for it. The same in this case: if your tree would threaten to fall down because it is dead or sick, and this would be an emergency, you could have it cut off and enter his land. You would still be trespassing but would use the excuse of private necessity. You still would be liable for any damage to the neighbor's property, though.

But your case is no emergency. So trespassing onto his land makes you civilly and probably criminally liable. No reasonable contractor would enter someone else's land without that landowner's consent either, because they also would be liable. Depending on state law, intentional trespass can mean triple damages: you damage some bush on the neighbor's land worth $ 1000 and the court will make you pay $ 3000.

My advice is: either find a way to remove the tree from your land, even if it costs more than the original proposal, or try to reason with your neighbor. But don't just walk onto his land.

 

[ukker]

ukker

Assuming the tree removal service can't guarentee that debris or some damage to bushes, etc. in the neighbor's yard can not be avoided. It seems to me that the obvious approach should be for the owner to take some action that would kill the tree, making it a hazard to both owner and neighbor and any trespass legally justifiable. [Stripping a circle of bark from the trunk might do it but might be noticed by the neighbor and questioned as fraudulent activity. Treating the ground/roots with a stump-killing chemical or such could be fairly unnoticable by the neighbor.]

I can understand the owner being liable for destroying $1000 worth of bushes but not $3000 since the $1000 would cover his loss as long as the trespass was legally justifiable.

Since the neighbor's issue seems to be the shade the owner provides free of charge and not really the tresspassing concern, I wonder if the owner can use that against the nieghbor in that the neighbor's concern is as fraudulent as the owner's actions of killing the tree to get around the trespassing issue might be. I doubt that the owner has any responsibility in supplying the neighbor with shade - any more than if therowner had a fence he wished to take down that was supplying the neighbor with privacy.

Any further followup from the owner or others on how this issue has progressed?