Case of the Day – Thursday, December 11, 2025

Posted on December 11, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

BAD BLOOD

Go, Roughriders!

There seems to be so much to do in the Christmas season that I can never catch up, and rarely can I get one task completed for all of the other tasks awaiting my attention. My bride of 46 years and I bought our Christmas tree two weeks ago. It took us five days to even get it inside and up. It took another five days to get the lights on. The poor tree still awaits decorations.

I note this as an excuse. A week ago, I addressed the first half of the question asked by alert sixth-graders at Western Reserve Elementary School (home of the Roughriders). It’s taken me until today to continue that thread: Today, we look at another decision from the days of yore to gain a better understanding of the issue they raised: if your apple tree drops its apples in the neighbors’ yard, do you have the right to go on to their land to pick them up?

Remember these guys? They apparently had 19th-century doppelgangers.

Neil Sedaka warned us about bad blood, although about 120 years too late for Newkirk and Sabler, the two actors in this little drama. It’s pretty clear from reading between the lines of this antebellum case that these neighbors loathed each other. Sabler told Newkirk to stay off his land, so Newkirk, of course, couldn’t resist having his guy cut across Sabler’s back 40 with a team of horses. Not to be outdone — sort of like a 19th-century version of “Spy vs. Spy” — Sabler rebuilt the fence Newkirk’s man had taken down, but he nailed it in place. The hired hand couldn’t get the horses and wagon out of the field, so he left them on Sabler’s land and retrieved his boss. The boss returned and started tearing down the fence when Sadler arrived. Words flew, tempers flared, and fisticuffs ensued.

After Newkirk apparently won the fight and got his horses back, he sued Sadler for assault, intending to add insult to injury. But the court threw the last punch, holding that Newkirk had no right to enter onto Sadler’s land to get property he wrongfully put there to begin with, and Sadler had every right to bean Newkirk with a club (which he had done) to keep him off.

Relevant to the question we considered last week, the court distinguished this case from other situations — including an apple tree owner whose apples fell onto a neighbor’s land. When a fruit tree drops its bounty on the neighbor’s land, the tree’s owner cannot prevent it. The owner continues to own the fruit, the court observed, and he or she may enter the neighbor’s land without being deemed a trespasser to collect the fallen fruit.

Unfortunately, much of the opinion is obiter dictum, unnecessary to the decision, and thus is of limited value as precedent. Nevertheless, kids, it’s the best we have. Sometimes the answers just aren’t all that clear.

Newkirk v. Sabler, 9 Barb. 652 (Sup.Ct. N.Y. 1850). Newkirk had sent his servant with a team and wagon across the defendant’s farm — upon which he entered by taking down the bars — to a neighbor’s house, even though Sabler had forbidden Newkirk from crossing his lands. On his return of the team to the place where it had entered, the servant found the fence bars had been refastened by boards nailed over them. The servant couldn’t break through, so he left the team and wagon on Sabler’s property and returned to Newkirk’s to tell him what had happened.

Newkirk went with his servant to the fencerow and tore down the fence to get his team and wagon out. Sabler arrived on the scene and forbade Newkirk from taking down the fence, and when Newkirk continued, a fight ensued between the parties. At one point, Sabler beat on Newkirk with a pole. Nevertheless, Newkirk finally got the fence down, removed his team, and then — to add insult to injury — sued landowner Sabler for assault.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury that although Newkirk’s team and wagon were wrongfully on Sabler’s land, it was Newkirk’s duty and right to get them off with the least possible injury to the premises and that Sabler was not justified in using violence to prevent him from removing his team from the premises. The jury found for Newkirk.

Sabler appealed.

Held: Newkirk had no right to enter Sabler’s land to reclaim his horses. Sabler had a right to defend his possession against Newkirk’s tearing down the fence and use as much force as necessary to prevent Newkirk from entering the property. The court held that an owner of personal property detained on the land of another — if he cannot obtain peaceable possession of it — may only bring suit in court to regain his property. Of interest, however, is the recognition in this early decision of a number of circumstances where the owner of a chattel — that is, personal property — may enter the land of another without being found to be a trespasser.

One example is a landlord’s right to inspect the premises to ensure the tenant is not engaged in waste. Others include a sale of land with a reservation of the timber rights, or if one enters the land of another to prevent the landowner’s livestock from dying, or because the public highway is blocked and he must get around the blockage. And the court held, “If my tree be blown down and fall on the land of my neighbor, I may go on and take it away. And the same rule prevails where fruit falls on the land of another. But if the owner of a tree cut the loppings so that they fall on another’s land, he cannot be excused for entering to take them away, on the ground of necessity, because he might have prevented it.”

In this case, the court held, Newkirk’s horses and wagon were on Sabler’s land where they had been left by Newkirk’s servant. They were not there with Sabler’s permission. Instead, Newkirk had been guilty of trespass in sending his team across Sabler’s lands after he had been forbidden to do so. And Sabler had the right to detain them before they left the premises, and it was not necessary to decide whether the defendant detained the property rightfully or wrongfully. If Newkirk could not regain the possession of his property peaceably, his only choice was to sue.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Wednesday, December 10, 2025

Posted on December 10, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

If the extent of your formal law schooling was gleaned from prime-time television (not that there’s anything wrong with that), then you already know that all lawsuits end up in trial, every trial is a cliffhanger, someone usually falls apart on the witness stand under withering cross-examination, and the winners typically go to a nice place for dinner afterward. With the client picking up the tab.

Congratulations. You are a lawyer.

Real life, unsurprisingly, seldom imitates art. And there is hardly ever a good meal at a white-tablecloth beanery after the win.

In reality, about 97% of civil cases never make it to trial. One party or the other files motions to dismiss for various reasons or seeks summary judgment, or simply gets out a wallet and settles. In fact, motions and summary judgment practice and settlement go hand in hand. It is usually a court’s action on a dismissal motion or summary judgment motion that throws cold water on one or both parties, causing them to remember that old-but-true legal maxim that “a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit.”

A motion to dismiss is filed in a case where the defendant argues essentially that even if everything the plaintiff says in the complaint is true, he or she cannot win because of lack of jurisdiction, because he or she filed beyond the statute of limitations, because the statute does not confer on a plaintiff the right of a private cause of action… there are a bunch of great arguments for dismissal.

Summary judgment is a little more complex. It is usually filed after most of the pretrial discovery is complete. Summary judgment depends on one side or the other proving that the evidence shows there is no genuine issue of fact to be decided, only application of the law to the unrebutted facts. For example, I t-bone you in an intersection. You have affidavits from five witnesses that I ran a red light. Your lawyer takes my deposition, and I complain that I don’t know whether the light was red because I was watching a TikTok video on my phone, and you should have been alert for distracted drivers like me.

In that case, who needs a trial? I can’t prove I didn’t run a red light because while you have witnesses who say I did, I have no witnesses (including me) who can say I did not.

When a party moves for summary judgment, losing does not mean he or she cannot prove the case. It just means that there is a question of fact – whether the jury believes your busload of nuns who say I ran a stoplight or whether it believes the guy who had just staggered out of a bar and says I did not.

Summary judgment is an excellent shortcut for cases in which a party cannot prove its case or defend itself (depending on whether the party moving for summary judgment is the plaintiff or the defendant). It saves a lot of court resources and legal fees. But as today’s case demonstrates, summary judgment is not for everyone. Where there is disputed evidence, even if the dispute is lopsided, a trial must result.

Johnson St. Properties, LLC v. Clure, 302 Ga. 51, 805 S.E.2d 60 (Supreme Ct. Ga., 2017). Cynthia Clure was a tenant of an apartment complex owned by Johnson Street Properties. JSP was owned and managed by Dan and Elaine Cartwright and their two sons, Chris and James.

In early 2013, a limb fell onto JSP’s property from a tree located on a neighboring lot. Other tree limbs had fallen onto the property during prior storms, including some from the adjacent property. The Cartwrights took action to remove those branches when such instances occurred. This time, a limb fell during a storm and became suspended between the gutter of one of JSP’s apartment buildings and some brush. Everyone agreed the suspended limb was an open and obvious condition, yet the length of time the limb remained suspended is unclear, ranging anywhere from a few days to a few months, according to who is telling the story. Cindy and her neighbors knew the limb was dangling from the gutter, and Cindy had even warned other tenants to stay away from the limb because it was dangerous and could fall. Cindy said she left voicemails with the Cartwrights, notifying them of the suspended limb, but they denied ever receiving any such voicemails.

On the day of the accident, Cindy discussed the limb with Steve Wilburn, a fellow tenant who sometimes worked as a JSP maintenance man. Steve and Cindy walked over to the hazard area, at which time he threw a rope over the limb. Cindy testified that she heard the gutter tear and told Wilburn to stop so she could warn the tenant inside the apartment about the loud noise. As she walked out of the apartment, Cindy told Steve, “Hold on. If you’re going to do anything, just wait.” But he did not, pulling on the rope. The limb swung down from its perch and struck Cindy.

Cindy sued JSP, arguing the company failed to maintain safe premises for its invitees. JSP moved for summary judgment, alleging that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding its negligence.

The trial court denied JSP’s summary judgment motion, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding its negligence.

Both parties appealed.

Held: Issues of fact existed requiring JSP to face a trial on negligence.

JSP argued that it had no knowledge of the dangling tree branch, that Steve – the guy who removed the limb – was not its agent or employee acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident; and because Cindy had superior knowledge of the hazard, she failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety and assumed the risk by getting too close to a known hazard.

First, JSP contends that it had no knowledge of the hazard before the incident at issue. But, the Court said, Georgia law places an owner/occupier on constructive notice of what a reasonable inspection conducted in the exercise of ordinary care would have revealed, provided that “one is not chargeable with negligence in failing to discover and remedy a danger in the property which he could not have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care, or which has not existed for a sufficient time to charge him with the duty of discovering it.”

Construing the evidence in favor of Cindy, as it was obliged to when judging a motion for summary judgment, the Court found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Steve acted as JSP’s agent when removing the limb. If he did, any knowledge about the hazard posed by the limb and its removal that Steve possessed could be imputed to JSP. What’s more, the Court said, there was a question of fact as to whether JSP knew about the limb even aside from Steve’s knowledge, because Cindy testified she left a message with JSP about it. While there was evidence that the owners conducted inspections of the property after major storms, there was a dispute as to whether a reasonable inspection was conducted between the time the limb in question became suspended (which may have occurred after a major storm) and Cindy’s injuries; and whether a sufficient amount of time had passed for JSP to discover the hazard prior to Cindy’s injuries. “Indeed,” the Court said, “the record is filled with contradictory sworn testimony from the parties and lay witnesses concerning these matters, raising credibility issues which cannot be resolved on summary judgment.”

JSP also argued the trial court erred in denying summary judgment because Steve was not its employee acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time he decided to remove the tree limb from the gutter. For that reason, JSP contended, Steve’s actions could not be imputed to JSP under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

But, the Court said, questions of the existence and extent of an agent’s authority are generally for the triers of fact. Here, a question of fact remained as to whether Steve was an employee working within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident. It is undisputed that he had an on-again-off-again working relationship with JSP as the maintenance man for the property. In fact, Jim Cartwright admitted that during 2013, JSP would have Steve perform tasks around the property “as needed.” Plus, there was some evidence that Steve held himself out as the apartment complex’s maintenance man to other tenants as late as March 2013. During that same period, Elaine Cartwright instructed at least one tenant that she could “go to Cynthia or Steve” if she had any issues with her apartment.

As to whether Steve was working within the course and scope of his employment, he testified that he would perform odd jobs around the property and would not always ask permission from the owners before beginning a maintenance task if he determined that task was within his job description. Additionally, Cindy testified that she witnessed Wilburn removing tree limbs from the parking lot before this incident. While there was some evidence to the contrary, “such contradictions simply underline the existence of genuine issues of material fact that are for a jury to decide, “ the Court said.

Finally, JSP argued that Cindy’s knowledge of the hazard created by the suspended tree limb was equal to or greater than that of JSP’s, and that such knowledge precluded her from recovering on her negligence claims. Cindy was clearly aware of the tree limb and testified that she understood the dangers it posed, given that it was suspended in the air. “But it is a plaintiff’s knowledge of the specific hazard which precipitates the injury which is determinative,” the Court said, “not merely her knowledge of the generally prevailing hazardous conditions or of the hazardous conditions which she observes and avoids.” In other words, Cindy was not injured by the random falling of the suspended tree limb — a possibility of which she was aware; instead, she was injured when the limb swung off the gutter while Wilburn was attempting to remove it. Steve had superior knowledge of his own plans and actions concerning removing the limb and the danger posed by such removal, knowledge that would be imputed to JSP if Steve were its agent. Thus, the Court held, although the record shows Cindy had some knowledge of the general hazard, “we cannot conclude as a matter of law that her knowledge of the “specific hazard” was equal to or greater than JSP’s; consequently, a jury question remains as to this issue.”

JSP said Cindy was contributorily negligent. The Court thought that it could be so, but “taking into account all the circumstances existing at the time and place of Clure’s injuries, and construing the evidence in favor of Clure, we cannot say that the evidence of Clure’s alleged contributory negligence is plain, palpable and undisputed.” Cindy’s proximity to Steve and the tree limb when he was attempting to remove the hazard was unclear from competing evidence. Cindy said she was walking away from the hazard when it fell. Steve wasn’t sure that Cindy had enough time to see it fall, raising a question as to whether she could have avoided the falling limb in the first place.

Finally, JSP argued that Cindy assumed the risks associated with the limb removal by entering “the danger zone” as Steve was removing the limb. Assumption of the risk bars a plaintiff’s recovery when a defendant establishes that a plaintiff, “without coercion of circumstances,” chooses a course of action with full knowledge of its danger and while exercising a free choice as to whether to engage in the act or not.’ To successfully assert this affirmative defense, the defendant “must establish that the plaintiff (1) had actual knowledge of the danger; (2) understood and appreciated the risks associated with such danger; and (3) voluntarily exposed herself to those risks.” Put simply, the Court said, “assumption of the risk means that the plaintiff, in advance, has given his consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him, and to take his chances of injury from a known risk arising from what the defendant is to do or leave undone.”

Because there are disputes in the evidence as to what occurred immediately preceding the limb’s fall — namely, Steve’s actions, Cindy’s location at the time in question, and whether she could have seen the limb fall from the gutter — the Court ruled that summary judgment was not appropriate as to whether Cindy assumed the risk.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Posted on December 9, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

IT’S EASIER TO ASK FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION

Tom and Jody apparently did not think much of the cottonwoods standing in the front yard of the house across the street from them. They talked to a tree service representative (at least, I surmise as much from the facts of the case), who told them that the cottonwoods stood in the city right-of-way, so they could have them removed regardless of what neighbors Chris and Jeanne may have thought.

That seems rather extreme: a homeowner on one side of the street can cut trees on the other side of the street. And, it turned out, there was a paperwork catch. The City of Anchorage ordinance required that one get a permit to “use” the right-of-way. “Using” the right-of-way includes cutting down a tree.

Tom and Jody did not bother getting a permit. Neither did the tree service they hired. A few months after the fact (probably because neighbors Chris and Jeanne were howling about the missing cottonwoods), the tree service applied for and got an after-the-fact permit. After all, as Admiral Hopper famously said, it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

Chris and Jeanne cried foul, arguing that because the tree service did not have a permit in hand when it took down the trees, the tree removal constituted timber trespass, and entitled them to treble damages. Their case wasn’t helped when the Anchorage bureaucracy pointed out that the trees were on its right-of-way, not on property controlled by Chris and Jeanne. To add insult to injury, the municipality asserted its right to grant retroactive tree removal permits, and, by the way, told Chris and Jeanne that the tree removal was a good thing, and replacement trees would never be permitted.

An interesting issue was whether Chris and Jeanne even had the right to sue for trees removed from the city right-of-way. Alas, that question was not answered, because the Alaska Supreme Court said the back-dated permit the City issued Tom and Jody was perfectly acceptable.

Rosauer v. Manos, 440 P.3d 145 (Supreme Ct. Alaska, 2019). Chris and Jeanne Rosauer owned a home across the municipal roadway from a home owned by Thomas Manos and Jody Liddicoat. The Municipality of Anchorage owns a right-of-way between the Rosauers’ property and the municipal roadway.

In August 2015 Tom and Jody hired Greatland Tree Service to cut down several cottonwood trees within the municipal right-of-way in front of the Rosauers’ property. The Anchorage Municipal Code requires private citizens to get a permit for the “use” of municipal rights-of-way, including for tree removal. Neither Tom and Jody nor Greatland obtained a permit before the tree removal, but Greatland later obtained a permit after the fact, a few months later.

In April 2016 the Rosauers sued Tom, Jody and Greatland, seeking damages under Alaska’s timber-trespass statute, AS 09.45.730, which provides that a “person who without lawful authority cuts down, girdles, or otherwise injures or removes a tree, timber, or a shrub on the land of another person or on the street or highway in front of a person’s house… is liable to the owner of that land.”

The next month, Chris asked the Municipality to invalidate the permit issued to Greatland. The Municipality denied Rosauer’s request, explaining in a permit-inspection report that the trees had been located on a “right of way and not on private property” and that their removal benefited the Municipality by “improv[ing] maintenance, snow removal, and access to the drainage ditch.” The report stated that the Municipality “will not permit the replacement of the trees in the same location.”

The two issues arising under the statute were whether the retroactive permit negated the requirement that removal be “without lawful authority” and whether the Rosauers could bring a claim under the statute even though they did not own the land from which the trees were removed.

The defendants argued that, because the statute does not specify when authority must be obtained, the retroactive permit constituted “lawful authority.” The Rosauers countered that while the statute is silent on timing, the Anchorage Municipal Code requires that a permit be obtained before removing trees from a right-of-way. The defendant replied that the code allows the Municipality to waive any breach of the terms or conditions of a permit, and that such terms and conditions include the requirement for obtaining a permit before tree removal.

Cottonwoods – fast-growing… and as messy as a 3-year old...

Tom and Jody also argued that the Rosauers lacked standing to bring a claim under AS 09.45.730 because they did not own the land from which the trees were removed. Tom and Jody interpreted the condition “liable to the owner of that land” to grant a cause of action only to the owners of land from which trees are removed. The Rosauers responded that Tom and Jody seemed to ignore the second condition — “or on the street or highway in front of a person’s house” — and that the term “owner of that land” also applies to homeowners whose property abuts a street or highway from which trees are removed, thus granting them a cause of action.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that to “prevail under AS 09.45.730, Plaintiffs are required to show Defendants cut down a tree on the street in front of their house without lawful authority.” The court concluded that the retroactive permit conferred lawful authority after the fact but before the lawsuit, and that was all that was required.

The Rosauers appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Held: Forgiveness is as good as permission.

Under AS 09.45.730, Alaska’s timber-trespass statute, a landowner may recover treble damages from a person who, without lawful authority, cuts down a tree on the land of another person or on the street or highway in front of a person’s house.

At the same time, municipalities may broadly delegate powers to their agencies or officers. Delegation of power promotes efficient government. Here, the Court said, Anchorage Municipal Code 24.30.120(A) broadly entrusts decisions regarding the safe and efficient use of public spaces to the Department of Development Services. Authority to grant retroactive permits, with terms and conditions necessary to protect the public interest, is consistent with such a policy.

The Court said Tom and Jody were correct that AS 09.45.730 does not specify when lawful authority must be obtained, a point which the Rosauers conceded. The statutory provision granting the Department permitting authority makes clear that permitting decisions involve agency expertise on public safety issues. This is clearly illustrated by the permit at issue in this case.

The subsequent permit-inspection report — created in response to the Rosauers’ request that the permit be invalidated — refuted any suggestion that it is unreasonable to interpret the municipal code provision authorizing waiver of permit terms and conditions to include waiver of the prior authorization requirement.

Thus, the Court ruled, the retroactive permit conferred lawful authority for the tree removal. Because the Municipality’s retroactive permit deprived the Rosauers of the requirement under AS 09.45.730 that removal be “without lawful authority,” the Court said the issue of whether the Rosauers had standing to sue need not be decided.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, December 8, 2025

Posted on December 8, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

THE LAW, SIR, IS AN ASS

In the 1970s (and undoubtedly even more so now), parking around The Ohio State University College of Law was awful. Everything was either reserved for faculty and staff (the parking lots) or metered with devices that would have made Einstein proud: while time crawled as we sat in property law, it was accelerated by the meter so that the hours (and the quarters) flew by.

The result, predictably, was that as a law student, I collected more than my fair share of parking tickets. When I didn’t pay them (chiefly because my student budget did not include a big chunk for the City of Columbus), dunning notices would be sent to my legal residence, which, of course, was my ancestral home. My mother would see them, shake her head in deep disappointment at her eldest son, and say, “I would think that law school would teach you to respect the law.”

Well, it did not, Ma, I am sorry to say. Or maybe not so sorry. After all, today’s case is Exhibit A in my argument that while Aretha may be entitled to a little respect, the law is not.

Ken and Sally Eyer were senior citizens who were forced to sell off timber to pay Sally’s chemotherapy bills. They owned the land: a big timber company contracted to cut the trees. Ken Eyer showed the company the boundary line, but the timber company – which, being in the business, should have known better – crossed onto neighboring land and committed a trespass to timber. The neighbors sued the Eyers, the Eyers brought in the timber company, and then what appears to have been a straightforward case went to hell.

Chief Justice Jim Jones, since retired, concurred in the judgment very reluctantly:

“I concur in the judgment because it correctly applies the law, even though the outcome is most unfortunate for the Eyers. It appears to me that the legal system catastrophically failed Kenneth and Sally Eyer.

This case started out as a $1,600 timber trespass. Under Idaho Code section 6-202, the Eyers were obligated to their neighbors, Russell and Laura Stevens, for treble damages. The Stevens filed suit, seeking a whopping $268,770 in damages. Eventually the case was settled upon the Eyers’ agreement to pay $50,000, plus interest, out of the estate of the last of them to die (they were octogenarians). Trial testimony indicated that $15,000 of the settlement was for damages and $35,000 for the Stevens’ attorney fees incurred in the suit. The Eyers had incurred their own attorney fees and costs in the sum of $37,934 by the time of the settlement. The Eyers’ third-party claim against Idaho Forest Group then went to trial and the Eyers lost. The district court granted Idaho Forest Group attorney fees and costs in the amount of $97,821.30. Thus, excluding attorney fees incurred by the Eyers in pursuing their third-party complaint and this Court’s award to Idaho Forest Group of its fees on appeal, the Eyers are out a minimum of $185,755.30 on a $1,600 timber trespass…

It is not clear from the record how the Eyers ended up in this position but it is a tragedy and does not speak well for the legal system. It is imperative that court procedures be reformed to expedite the process and reduce the cost of litigation to avert a repeat of this unfortunate story.”

So no, Ma, in the ensuing 49-odd years since law school, I have not learned to respect the law. If anything, I’m headed the other way.

I do, however, respect Ken and Sally Eyer. Sadly, Sally died of cancer shortly after the Idaho Supreme Court stripped her of her life savings. Ken passed away in April 2020. After all of that miserable litigation, his obituary nonetheless said, “his life was adventurous, full of humor and endless learning.”

He and Sally are worthy of all of the respect I have failed to give the law. (Chief Justice Jim Jones, too… he retired from the Idaho Supreme Court in 2017, and is now “actively educating and recruiting community to help refugees to establish in Idaho“).

Stevens v. Eyer, 161 Idaho 407, 387 P.3d 75 (Supreme Ct. Idaho, 2016). Ken and Sally Eyer entered into a log purchase agreement with Idaho Forest Group, Inc., because the couple – both in their 80s – needed money to pay medical bills. IFG sent an agent to the Eyers’ property before logging to assist them in locating property lines. “I told them not to cut anything I could see from my deck,” Ken told the Spokane, Washington, Spokesman-Review.

But when the logging occurred, IFG mistakenly cut timber located on neighboring land belonging to Russ and Laura Stevens. The Stevenses promptly sued the Eyers for timber trespass. The Eyers brought a third-party action against IFG, which essentially said that if the Eyers were liable to the Stevenses, then IFG was liable to the Eyers for the same amount. The Eyers claimed IFG breached its duty to properly mark the property lines.

The Stevenses, who sued for over $250,000 for $1,600 worth of mistakenly-cut trees, settled with the Eyers for $50,000, to be paid from the estate of the latter Eyer spouse to die.

At trial, the Eyers alleged that IFG assumed a duty to locate the property boundary between the Eyers and Stevenses’ properties. The jury found that IFG had not assumed this duty.

Afterward, IFG moved for an award of $95,600 in attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3), which permits the award of such fees in a commercial transaction. The Eyers argued that there was no commercial transaction because they were going to pay medical bills with the proceeds of the timber sale. The district court nevertheless awarded IFG the full amount of the company’s requested attorney fees.

On appeal, the Eyers contended Idaho Code section 12-120(3 ) does not apply.

Held: The Eyers owed the legal fees.

The commercial transaction ground in Idaho Code Ann. § 12-120(3) neither prohibits a fee award for a commercial transaction involving tortious conduct nor requires a contract. Instead, the rule is based upon the second paragraph of § 12-120(3), which mandates an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in any commercial transaction.

The Court said that whether a party can recover attorney fees under the statute depends on whether the “gravamen of a claim” is a commercial transaction. A “gravamen” is the material or significant part of a grievance or complaint. Courts analyze the gravamen claim by claim. To determine whether the significant part of a claim is a commercial transaction, the court must examine whether a commercial transaction (1) is integral to the claim and (2) constitutes the basis of the party’s theory of recovery on that claim. For a transaction to be commercial, each party to the transaction must enter the transaction for a commercial purpose.

The Court noted it had previously characterized transactions as commercial when the purpose for entering into the transaction was to generate income. Earning income, the Court said, is the quintessential act of engaging in commerce.

To be sure, the Eyers had purely personal purposes in mind for the revenue they would realize from the sale of timber to IFP. Most employed people use their income for “personal or household purposes,” such as paying for lodging, food, utilities, and entertainment. Nevertheless, the Court said, by virtue of their employment, they are engaged in commerce. For that reason, actions brought for breach of an employment contract are considered commercial transactions under Idaho Code Ann. § 12-120(3).

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, December 5, 2025

Posted on December 5, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED

Have you ever wondered why this blog is named “tree AND neighbor law?” Primarily, it’s because when I set it up, someone had already taken “Google” and “Amazon.” I had to settle for what Internet domains were left.

All right, not really. But you may have noticed by now that there are many tree cases that never would have been brought but for the fact that neighbors were involved, or maybe just N-I-N-Os, “neighbors in name only.”

Today’s case is one of those cases. Reading between the lines, the Fleeces and Kankeys appeared to be congenial next-door neighbors. They had agreed on their property boundary, marked as it was by a common fence. When the fence deteriorated, they agreed to share the cost of replacement.

But when the Kankeys bulldozed the old fence and put in a sparkling new edifice, everything went south. It seems that some scrubby trees along the old fence were destroyed in the process. Suddenly, the Fleeces became the aggrieved parties, and not only did not want to contribute to the fence project, but demanded $17,500 to replace trees that lacked any market value. They apparently were anxious to try out Arkansas’s double and treble damage statutes as well.

The trial court made short work of the Fleeces’ attempted fleece, but the court of appeals grudgingly admitted that yes, replacement value counted (even for trees that lacked any market value). The appeals judges seemed to suggest that it would be (or should be) pretty hard to prove the intent needed for an application of the multiple damage statutes.

Nevertheless, the court seemed to say that no matter Bill Kankey’s good intentions in moving the project along, some of those trees – we don’t know how many – appear to have been boundary trees. Thus, the Fleeces and the Kankeys owned those trees as tenants in common. Neither owner had the right to destroy the tree without the consent of the other.

Fleece v. Kankey, 77 Ark. App. 88, 72 S.W.3d 879 (Ct. App. Ark. 2002). Harlan and Nancy Fleece were Bill and Charlotte Kankey’s neighbors. For some time, they had agreed that an old fence was the boundary line between them. When the fence began falling down, they agreed to share the cost of replacing the fence. Bill and Char bulldozed the old fence separating the properties, along with some trees that stood alongside it.

That’s when the deal fell apart. Harlan and Nancy sued Bill and Char for trespass and for destruction of the trees. The trial court found that, except for two posts that needed to be moved south two feet, the new fence was located in the same position as the old fence. The court held that Harlan and Nancy suffered no loss over the destroyed trees because the trees had no market value.

Harlan and Nancy appealed, arguing that they should have been awarded damages for the replacement value of the destroyed trees. Bill and Char replied that because they had no market value and because the removal of the trees and installation of the new fence actually improved the area, Harlan and Nancy had nothing coming.

Held: The case was reversed and sent back to the trial court for consideration of Harlan and Nancy’s damages due to the trees’ loss.

Arkansas Code Annotated § 18-60-102(a) provides, in part, that “if any person shall cut down, injure, destroy, or carry away any tree placed or growing for use or shade… on the land of another person… the person so trespassing shall pay the party injured treble the value of the thing so damaged, broken, destroyed, or carried away, with costs.” The treble-damages remedy requires a showing of intentional wrongdoing, although intent may be inferred from the carelessness, recklessness, or negligence of the offending party. Less-than-intentional conduct may support double damages under Ark. Code Ann. § 20-22-304, but must be pled in order to give a defendant adequate notice of the remedy he would be confronting.

Harlan and Nancy argued that the statute did not require that a tree have a market value in order for a landowner to be entitled to replacement value damages. Larry Morris, a registered forester, gave expert testimony that 35 trees had been bulldozed on the east/west side and 25 more on the north/south side. He explained that the destroyed trees included Post Oak, Black Oak, and Black Jack Oak. He calculated that the replacement value of the trees was $ 17,531.00.

The trial court dismissed Morris’s testimony because it focused on replacement value, not market value. The trial court held that “in view of the rural nature of this area, and the location of the lane over which the Fleeces travel, it seems absurd to award damages on a replacement estimate because the removal of the old fence and the installation of the new fence has actually improved the area.”

The appellate court found this ruling clearly erroneous, one that suggested that the trial judge failed to consider the number of trees cut down and their replacement value. The appellate court said that the Arkansas rule is that when ornamental or shade trees are injured, the use made of the land should be considered, and the owner compensated by the damages representing the cost of replacement of the trees.

Damages awarded for the loss of a shade tree cannot include both replacement costs and consequential damages, but clearly, replacement costs are a proper measure of damages.

“Because the trial court appears to have relied entirely on the question of market value,” the appeals court said, “we are unable to determine whether the court considered other factors besides the market value in assessing appellants’ damages, including replacement value and the number of trees lost. Therefore, we reverse and remand.”

The appeals court included a final observation, “that it appears uncontroverted that many of the trees were located in the boundary line. Other jurisdictions have held that owners of boundary line trees are considered tenants in common, and neither tenant possesses the right to destroy the commonly held property without consent of the other.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, December 4, 2025

Posted on December 4, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

A NICE DAY FOR A FROLIC

Seems like not so long ago (but it was over 20 years now) that a class of sharp-witted grade school students at Western Reserve Elementary School asked us a question, one which seemed simple but is deceptively complex. Inquisitive kids that they are, they wanted to know whether it would be an act of theft for the owner of an apple tree to go onto neighboring property to retrieve apples that had fallen from the owner’s tree.

Turns out it’s a darn good question. Not much has been decided on this, requiring us to read an 1870 New York case for an answer. In that decision, a logger lost his logs in a flood. They came to rest on the riverbank, making a mess of the riverbank owner’s land. A fast talker convinced the log owner to let him negotiate with the landowner, pay the guy’s damages, and retrieve the logs. He made a deal with the landowner and hauled the logs away, but he never made the promised payment. The Court ordered the logger to pay the damages, holding that the owner of personal property that ends up on the lands of another has a choice: abandon the personal property and have no liability to the landowner, or retrieve the personal property and pay for any damages caused by the property’s coming to rest.

Of interest to our intrepid 6th graders (after whether someone is going to help pay for their lunches) was this: the Court noted in passing that it was settled law that one whose fruit falls or is blown upon his neighbor’s ground doesn’t lose ownership, but instead “may lawfully enter upon the premises to recapture his property.”

There you go, sixth graders! Who says adults don’t listen to you? And as for the rest of us, isn’t it curious how contrary the holding is to the Massachusetts Rule of self-help, which was handed down some 55 years later? At the same time, isn’t it interesting how consistent the New York court’s decision is with the North Dakota Supreme Court opinion in Herring v. Lisbon, that the portion of the tree overhanging a neighbor’s land still belongs to the tree’s owner, thus imposing on the owner a duty to ensure that the tree does not cause harm.

Sheldon v. Sherman, 3 Hand 484, 42 N.Y. 484, 1870 WL 7733 (Ct. App. N.Y. 1870), 1 Am.Rep. 569. Sherman’s logs were swept away in a spring flood on the Hudson River, coming to rest on Sheldon’s property where — Sheldon complained — they caused significant damage. A third party, Mayo Pond, told Sherman he’d pay Sheldon’s damages, have the logs cut into lumber and deliver the boards to Sherman for a set fee. But then the double-dealing Pond told Sheldon he was an agent for Sherman in settling the damages and that Sherman would pay the agreed-upon damages. This was news to Sherman, who refused to pay the damages because he already had a deal with Pond that Pond would pay. Landowner Sheldon sued log owner Sherman for the agreed-upon damages, and the trial court found for Sheldon. Sherman appealed.

Held: Sherman was up a creek without a paddle. The Court of Appeals — New York’s highest court — held that Sherman had a choice. One whose property ends up on the lands of another by an inevitable accident (such as a flood), without the owner’s fault or negligence, may elect either (1) to abandon the property, in which case he is not liable to the landowner for any injury caused by the property; or (2) to reclaim it, in which case he is obligated to make good to the landowner the damages caused by the property. Here, once Pond agreed with Sherman that he’d settle with the landowner and retrieve the logs. Pond’s authority from Sherman to remove the logs was clear, whatever his right to promise payment might have been. Thus, the law implied the existence of a promise by the log owner to pay damages.

The waters receded, but the logs were everywhere …

Of interest in the decision is the Court’s discussion of what it called “a large class of cases” in which injury is suffered by a party, but the law gives no redress. The Court said, “If a tree growing upon the land of one is blown down upon the premises of another, and in its fall injures his shrubbery, or his house, or his person, he has no redress against him upon whose land the tree grew. If one builds a dam of such strength that it will give protection against all ordinary floods, the occurrence of an extraordinary flood by which it is carried away, and its remains are lodged upon the premises of the owner below, or by means whereof the dam below is carried away, or the mill building is destroyed, gives no claim against the builder of the dam.” In this case, the Court said, the logs were carried down the river and deposited on Sheldon’s land without fault on the defendant’s part. Thus, Sherman was not responsible for damages, and any promise he might have made to Sheldon to make it good would be unenforceable.

If Sherman chose to abandon his property, he had the right to do so, and no one could call him to account. He was not compelled, however, to abandon it, but had the right to reclaim it. The Court said the case was “like one whose fruit falls or is blown upon his neighbor’s ground, the ownership is not thereby lost, but the owner may lawfully enter upon the premises to recapture his property. When he does so reclaim or recapture, his liability to make good the damage done by his property arises. He then becomes responsible. Before he can reclaim or recapture the property thus astray, justice and equity demand that he should make good the injury caused by its deposit and its continuance.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Posted on December 3, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

WHEN IS FEE SIMPLE NOT SIMPLE?

Nothing light today, boys and girls. We have work ahead of us. Sure, Thanksgiving is a memory (except for all of the leftovers stacked in the refrigerator), but the Christmas season is here, Black Friday and Cyber Monday have come and gone, and as that great educator M.C. Hammer once said, “Yo, sound the bell, school is in, sucker …“

So listen up. When land is conveyed from one party to another without any limitations whatsoever, the conveyance is done in “fee simple absolute,” or just “fee simple” for short. The conveyance usually says that the land is conveyed “unto the said party of the second part and its successors and assigns forever,” or words to that effect.

At the time the railroad came through a part of Idaho (think “Famous Potatoes”) in the late 19th century, a lot of landowners thought they were conveying their land to the railroad in fee simple. But their deeds had not just the magic “fee simple” language, but also a “habendum clause.” A “habendum clause” is a clause in a deed that defines the extent of the interest being granted and any conditions affecting the grant.

Legal mumbo-jumbo? Not when the facts changed.

In the case of the Idaho deeds, the conveyance language transferred title to the railroad “to have and to hold all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances as a perpetual right of Way for said second party’s Rail Way Line unto the said party of the second part and its successors and assigns forever.” Yeah… yadda, yadda, yadda, how lawyers like to natter on and on… None of this gibberish seemed important for a century, during which time the trains puffed up and down the track. But when the rail line was torn up, suddenly the old documents became very interesting.

Under the National Trails System Act, the government can convert an old railroad right-of-way into a recreational trail without the rail line being deemed to be abandoned. That’s what happened in Idaho. But some of the landowners whose properties were transected by the abandoned right-of-way talked to a smart lawyer. She told the owners, “These old documents aren’t deeds; they’re just easements for a railroad.” That was an important distinction: the easements weren’t for the benefit of some granola-munchers, but rather for rolling stock.

The Federal Court of Claims had a tough task ahead of it. The Idaho Federal District Court had already ruled that such deeds were conveyances in fee simple, meaning that the owners abutting the railroad had no means to reclaim the land. The problem was that the interpretation of the deeds was a matter of Idaho law, and the Idaho Supreme Court had never reached the precise issue. The Court of Claims carefully parsed other Idaho decisions and decided that, based on its treatment of other cases, the Idaho Supreme Court would rule — if it had been asked to — that the references in the deeds to the “perpetual right of Way for said second party’s Rail Way Line” limited the purpose of the conveyance, and therefore made the deed a grant of a mere easement, not perpetual ownership.

With two federal courts disagreeing on what Idaho jurists would say if asked, it’s likely that the state courts themselves ultimately will have to resolve the issue by ruling definitively on the question.

Abandoned right-of-way

Blendu v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 500 (2007). Owners of land abutting or traversing an abandoned railroad right-of-way contested the government’s using the right-of-way as a recreational trail pursuant to the National Trails System Act, claiming that the government’s action effected a taking of their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The predecessor landowners had deeded land to the railroad about a hundred years before, with deeds that contained language in the granting clauses that convey all estate, right, title and interest in the property to the railroad, but also contained habendum clauses “to have and to hold all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances as a perpetual right of Way for said second party’s Rail Way Line unto the said party of the second part and its successors and assigns forever.” Under the Act, the government could convert abandoned railroad rights-of-way to trails without the use constituting an abandonment of the right of way. However, Blendu and the plaintiff property owners argued that under their deeds, they had really just given easements – not a deed in fee simple – and the cessation of rail service did not permit the government to use the easement of a trail. They moved for summary judgment in the U.S. Court of Claims, and the government cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that the deeds were a conveyance of the property in fee.

Held: Under Idaho law, a deed which contained a granting clause that quitclaimed certain real estate to the railroad and a habendum clause stating that the railroad held the real estate “as a perpetual right of Way for said second party’s Rail Way Line unto the said party of the second part and its successors and assigns forever,” the deed only conveyed an easement and not fee simple title.

The easement was for rolling stock …

… not for Birkenstocks.

The Court said that the use of the term “right of way” in the habendum clause unambiguously reflected an intention to convey an easement, overcoming Idaho’s statutory presumption in favor of a fee simple interest. The Court of Claims concluded the distinction between the granting clause and the habendum clause had not been made by the Supreme Court of Idaho, but the Court of Claims believed that the Idaho Supreme Court cases found the presence of the term “right of way” in any substantive part of the deed to be determinative. The deeds in this case contained the term “right of way” in the habendum clause, thus unambiguously reflecting an intention to convey an easement and overcoming Idaho’s statutory presumption in favor of a fee simple interest.

As further evidence of the conveyance of an easement, the Court said, the deeds contained a designation for use of the right of way for the Railroad’s “railway line.”

The easement was for rails, not trails.

– Tom Root