Case of the Day – Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Posted on November 20, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE

Remember prescriptive easements? Those are easements and other rights over property that can be taken because they are exercised adversely to the owner for a number of years (the number varies from state to state).

For example, the electric company strings wires across the corner of your homestead. You didn’t give anyone permission to do that. The wires hang there for 21 years, providing a perch for the pigeons and a trellis for the kudzu. You don’t like them, but you don’t do anything about them. Then you sell the place to Sherman Shyster, an angry lawyer with a laptop and printer. He immediately sues the power company for trespass. But because the wires have been hanging there for a sufficient number of years, the court that the electric company has gained the air rights over that corner of the property by a “prescriptive easement.”

The exercise of adverse rights – the wires hanging there – must be done openly, notoriously and continuously. Anything less, and there’s no easement. In today’s case from California, Gabriele wanted a nice driveway on a sloping hill, but he couldn’t fit it onto his fairly vertical land. So he made a deal with his neighbor, Mrs. Hoehne. She gave him a non-exclusive easement to build a drive on a described bit of land, and in return, he agreed to build a nice road for her to use to come down to and across a retention pond and dam she had.

Before the drive was built, Mrs. Hoehne sold her land to Ms. Cobb. Ms. Cobb didn’t much want Gabrielle’s driveway cutting across her place, but she was stuck with her predecessor’s easement. Still, she asked Gabriele about his intentions before construction began, and he showed her a sketch of the proposed drive.

Oops. The driveway didn’t get built according to plan, instead wandering onto Mrs. Cobb’s non-easement property. When Ms. Cobb finally had her own engineer study the layout of the driveway eight years later, he found the encroachment. California’s time period for a prescriptive easement is only five years, but Ms. Cobb claimed that Gabriele lied to her with the misleading driveway sketch. Therefore, she argued, his possession during the five-year period was neither open nor notorious.

Ah, the Court said, there’s a real difference between predicting today how the project will turn out, and describing tomorrow how it did really turn out. A prediction that doesn’t come true is not the same as a subsequent lie swearing that something that didn’t happen really did.

Gabriele thought the driveway would lie completely within the easement. No lie. The driveway turned out not to lie completely within the easement. While the error was lamentable, it was not a lie. That is, predicting a future lie isn’t a lie. Got that?

The court ruled that the driveway could stay where it was, having acquired the right by prescriptive easement.

Cobb v. Gabriele, 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3448, 2007 WL 1247308 (Cal.App. 6 Dist., Apr. 30, 2007). In 1989, the Gabrieles bought a parcel of unimproved land along Salinas Road. Their engineer prepared plans for a driveway directly onto their land from Salinas Road, but the county wouldn’t permit it because the land was too steep. The Gabrieles discussed an easement with their neighbor, Phyllis Hoehne, who ultimately executed a non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and public utilities over a piece of her land. The easement provided that the Gabrieles would build a driveway, drainage facilities, and erosion improvements on the easement land, and would allow Hoehne to use the driveway portion to access a retention dam located on her property. The Gabrieles also agreed to build an access road across the dam.

Gabriele’s driveway was this long … but not this nice.

Hoehne then sold her land to Cobb, who didn’t much like the easement. Gabrielle built the driveway without notice to Cobb two years later, and when she demanded to know what he was doing, showed her a sketch that depicted the proposed driveway completely within the easement boundaries.

Somehow, the driveway wasn’t built according to the plan, but instead went outside the easement and encroached on between 100 and 120 feet on Cobb’s property. The Gabrieles have used the driveway continuously since its construction, having paved it in 1997. But the Gabrieles didn’t build what they had promised Hoehne. When Cobb asked about the access road, the Gabrieles explained that the road was just going to be a roughed-in dirt road the width of a bulldozer blade, to be used only for a fire exit. Gabriele said Cobb had changed her mind and didn’t want the roughed-in road. But in March 2000, Cobb’s attorney wrote to the Gabrieles about the easement. He asserted that some of the improvements that were supposed to have been constructed in connection with the driveway had not been completed and that the driveway had been construed in a location outside of that designated by the easement. However, Cobb testified that at that time she did not have “absolute knowledge” that the driveway was outside the easement. She said her attorney had made that accusation to cover all possibilities should there be litigation.

In 2003, Cobb received a survey showing the encroachment. Cobb sued that year to quiet title and prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief. She wanted an order that the driveway must be moved. She asserted causes of action for trespass, nuisance, breach of contract, negligence, waste, failure to maintain, unreasonable use, fraud, diversion and diminution of water, and damages to trees, and she sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The trial court granted the Gabrieles’ motion for summary adjudication on the claims for trespass, nuisance, negligence, waste, fraud, diversion/diminution, and damage to trees and the request for punitive damages, finding them barred by the three-year statute of limitations, but found in Cobb’s favor on her claim for failure to maintain. The trial court also found that the Gabrieles had a prescriptive easement over the property where the driveway went outside of the written easement.

Cobb appealed.

Held: The judgment was affirmed. The Court of Appeals found that Gabrieles had shown the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement and that the use of the property has been open, notorious, continuous and adverse for an uninterrupted period of five years.

The Court said that the requirement that the use be hostile and adverse and under a claim of right means that the property owner has not expressly consented to or permitted, allowed, or authorized the use of his or her land, and the user does not recognize or acknowledge the owner’s rights, not necessarily that one must know that the use constitutes an encroachment or trespass. In short, where one openly and continuously — even mistakenly — uses another’s property for the 5-year period without the owner’s interference, it is presumed that the use was adverse, hostile, and by claim of right.

Here, the record showed that the driveway encroached on Cobb’s property. Cobb knew about the recorded easement and had constructive knowledge of its boundaries. As well, she knew exactly where the driveway was constructed and saw the Gabrieles continuously use it for more than the prescriptive period. Finally, there was no evidence that Cobb expressly permitted the Gabrieles to use any area outside the easement, nor was there evidence that the Gabrieles intended to stop using the entire driveway or remove part of it if they had known that part of it was outside the easement.

Cobb claimed the Gabrieles failed to establish the open-and-notorious element because Gabriele concealed the fact that the driveway encroached on her property. She noted that Gabriele assured her that the driveway would be inside the easement and gave her a diagram to that effect. Given the concealment, Cobb argued, she did not have knowledge or constructive notice that the driveway constituted an encroachment.

The Court, however, said that before the driveway was actually constructed, Gabriele gave Cobb a sketch showing that it would be within the easement. Thus, it only represented his understanding of where the driveway would be located, not where it had been located. There was no evidence that when Gabriele gave Cobb the sketch, he knew the driveway would be constructed outside the easement, nor is there evidence that after it was built, the Gabrieles knew it encroached on Cobb’s property. And at trial, Cobb conceded that the Gabrieles did not know about the encroachment until her engineer conducted his survey in 2003.

Mrs. Cobb simply couldn’t have it both ways.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, October 21, 2024

Posted on October 21, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

WE ALWAYS MEANT IT

An entire e-cottage industry has grown up around the notion that there are some areas of the law – incorporation, wills, real estate transactions, contracts, divorce – where all you need to do is download some PDF fillable forms, answer a few simple questions, and save yourself a ton of money by representing yourself. When we complain about it, our admonitions are written off as self-interest.

But we always meant it. So, using an argument you might correctly characterize as reductio ad absurdum, we give you Nellie Francis.

Nellie believed she was suffering from some encroaching trees belonging to her neighbor. So she did what any red-blooded American would do: she sued.

After all, how hard can this be? Nellie filed a complaint, sent off a few motions, and called some witnesses. That’s all that a real lawyer would do, after all, and he or she would charge you $10,000 to do it.

Whoa, Nellie! She filed all sorts of motions, kept trying to amend her complaint, and even added damages for which she had been paid, which never happened, or – in one case – which happened to someone else, but she claimed it anyway.

The trial court sanctioned Nellie, requiring her to pay the defendant’s legal fees for a particularly egregious and frivolous filing. Undaunted, Nellie filed a demand that he pay her legal fees as well, not the least inconvenienced by the fact that she was representing herself, that is, she was pro se, and so she had no fees.

For that matter, at trial, she could not even prove that the fallen branches came from defendant Joshua’s trees. That seems kind of basic, the notion that you don’t sue unless you have some proof that the defendant is the one who caused you harm.

Those are the kind of technicalities that lawyers worry about. That’s why, Legal Zoom or not, they continue to be a necessary evil. Just ask Nellie…

Francis v. Brown, 836 A.2d 206 (R.I. 2003). A simple dispute between two abutting landowners and allegations of negligence in maintaining trees running along the property line between them brought Nellie S. Francis, representing herself (never a good idea) and Joshua Brown into court.

Nellie S. Francis lives at 16 Miller Avenue in Providence. The rear of her property is bordered by a 100’ fence, part of which abuts Joshua Brown’s place at 21-23 Verndale Avenue. A row of mature maple trees stands along the boundary between Nellie’s and Josh’s.

Nellie sued Josh, contending he was negligent for failing to maintain the trees or to prune rotted limbs that constantly fell into her backyard, causing injury to herself, her children, her dog and her elderly mother, as well as damages to her fence, two cars, a concrete floor of a torn-down garage, a swing set, and a doghouse. Josh denied all of Nellie’s allegations.

In February 2000, Josh moved to enter on to Nellie’s land to remove any trees belonging to him. She objected to his entry unless he assumed the liability for any damage done by work crews. Nell filed her own motion to compel Josh to cut down the trees on his property. As a result, Josh filed a motion for sanctions based on Nellie having proposed orders inconsistent with prior court rulings, and having filed frivolous motions to compel Josh to do that which she simultaneously had opposed. The hearing justice agreed and further found that Nell had caused unnecessary delay and increased Josh’s cost of litigation. She was ordered to pay $350 to defense counsel by June 9, 2000.

Along with her blizzard of pretrial motions, Nellie found time to move to amend her complaint on more than one occasion to add further damages. She also appealed to try to review an order denying her motion for reconsideration of an order granting Joshua’s motion for assessment of legal fees against Nellie. Undaunted by the prospect of the trial court sanctioning her for her vigorous and unschooled courtroom antics, Nellie sought leave to amend her complaint for a second time, this time incorporating diverse and sundry damages not included in her first amended complaint. The trial court turned her motion down, finding it was “too late [and] inappropriate,” and prohibiting her from bringing forth any incidents not referred to in her first amended complaint. What’s more, the trial justice ruled that Nellie would be precluded from presenting any medical evidence relating to animals or persons not named as complainants. Finally, he ruled that no information regarding insurance coverage would be given to the jury so that the jury would decide the matter on the merits and not on the defendant’s ability to pay.

Neophyte Nellie fared little better at trial. She presented several witnesses, including herself and her daughters, but conceded that she did not know what caused the branches to fall, nor could she state with certainty whether branches shown to her in photo exhibits had come from Joshua’s property or that of the vacant property next door. She admitted that she did not own the two vehicles damaged by trees for which she sought compensation. Neither of her daughters could pinpoint from whose property the fallen branches originated and neither offered testimony as to what caused the branches to fall. Louis Bobola, the director of forestry for the City of Providence testified that the trees were not on city property. He also said that the trees needed pruning, but that he did not see any decay on the trees.

Joshua’s lawyer introduced evidence that six years before, Nellie’s insurance carrier had already paid her for some of the tree damage she had now claimed. At the end of the trial, the judge granted Joshua judgment as a matter of law, holding that Nellie had utterly failed to prove her claim:

“The problem with the entire case is there is no evidence before the jury with regard to any damages sustained in this case by the plaintiff or her property… [T]here is not a scintilla of evidence before this court as to what tree or trees occasioned the alleged injury, on whose property they were located, were they on the defendant’s property or were they on the abutting property on the boarded-up house. And throughout the case, while there are certain inferences that can be drawn that branches do not fall on their own from trees, it simply in this [c]ourt’s view is not sufficient to be able to predicate a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant simply because this event has occurred… Mere ownership of trees that may or may not have caused damages does not impute negligence to the owner.”

The unsinkable Nellie filed for reconsideration, which the judge treated as a motion for a new trial. The court, charitably noting that Nellie had undertaken a difficult task by representing herself in the matter, found that the record was devoid of any objective damage for the jury to consider even if she had satisfied the first two requirements of negligence and proximate cause.

Nellie appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: The trial court was upheld in every regard.

After reciting a litany of Nellie’s failings, the Court upheld the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, refusal of Nellie’s repeated amendments and judgment for Joshua. As for Nellie’s amendments, the Court agreed with the trial judge that she had been allowed to amend once, the trial date was upon the parties, and the amendment was flawed, with “many of the proposed incidents that plaintiff sought to add occurred several years previously. We believe that plaintiff was aware of their occurrence well before she filed her original complaint.”

After all of that, the trial court’s modest $350.00 sanction of Nellie seemed restrained. Noting that Joshua “was awarded $350 in fees as a sanction against plaintiff for filing motions and making pretrial objections for inappropriate purposes,” the Supreme Court held that “the trial justice awarded a reasonable fee, well below the amount requested by defendant, for the purpose of giving “a warning” to the plaintiff. We believe the sanction was justified and well within the trial justice’s discretion.”

Nellie had made her own demand that Joshua pay her a “pro se” fee for the work she had done on her own case. The Court drily said, “We decline to address the plaintiff’s appeal from the denial of her motion for an award of pro se fees. The plaintiff has not supplied this Court with an adequate record on which to review the issue, and therefore, we deny and dismiss her appeal on this issue.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, October 15, 2024

Posted on October 15, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

I CAN’T SEE FOR MILES AND MILES…

Here’s a strange little case from Big Sky Country. Landowner Wilber (who, if we read between the lines correctly, was an impatient man who preferred to reap that which he did not sow, if you get our meaning) was unhappy that his downhill neighbor had a tree that had grown tall, and thus interfered with his view.

Wilbur found a lawyer, to whom he complained, “I can’t see for miles.” The lawyer, Who was happy enough to take Wilbur’s money, whispered delusions of legal grandeur in Wilbur’s ear. “If the neighbors’ tree kept you from seeing the July 4th fireworks,” the attorney whispered, “then the tree is a nuisance. And if the neighbors did not remove the tree to suit you, then they’re malicious! If the tree is overhanging your yard, your neighbors are trespassers!”

Believing his highly paid but under-informed counsel, Wilbur sued. The trial court bounced the suit, because (1) Wilbur had no common-law right to a view; (2) a naturally growing tree cannot be a nuisance; and (3) the neighbors are not trespassers because their tree’s roots and branches have encroached.

Wilbur appealed, and at last, the Montana Supreme Court heard the case. And that’s where the strangeness arose. The Supreme Court agreed that Wilbur had no right to a view and that the healthy, naturally growing tree was no nuisance. But it held that Wilbur’s trespass claim because the tree was encroaching, had been adequately pled and would survive early dismissal.

We tend to think that the Court agreed only that Wilbur’s claim that the neighbors had caused the tree to encroach was, if true, a good claim. If Montana suggests that a tree’s encroachment itself constitutes a trespass if an owner does not take active steps to stop the encroachment, the holding goes far beyond even the Hawaii Rule or Fancher v. Fagella.

If, on the other hand, Montana suggests that such encroachment, if not halted by an owner with knowledge of the encroachment and damage to the property of another, is trespass, this may be not a lot different than the Hawaii Rule, just worded differently. After all, an encroaching tree that damages the neighbor’s property may well be a nuisance. Trespass or nuisance, the responsible landowner is liable for the damage. That is how the Hawaii Rule operates.

Martin v. Artis, 366 Mont. 513 (Mont. 2012). Wilbur Martin resides in the South Hills subdivision in Missoula. Keith and Gloria Artis’s property lies immediately below and abuts Wilbur’s property, with a boundary fence separating the properties.

The Artises had a tree, a nice large tree that had grown over the years so that it blocked a substantial portion of Wilbur’s view of the city, valley and mountains. In fact, horror of horrors, on Independence Day 2010, for example, Wilbur and his guest could see virtually none of the South Gate Mall fireworks display solely because of the Artis tree blocking the view. Wilbur said the tree’s obstruction of his views was “offensive to his senses, was an infringement upon the free use of his property, interfered with his comfortable enjoyment of his property, and diminished the aesthetic and monetary value of his property.” He said the tree was a nuisance, and in fact, the Artises intended that it be a nuisance.

If that were not enough, Wilbur alleged that the tree’s roots were encroaching onto his property and were starting to buckle the boundary fence. What’s more, he claimed, branches from the tree encroached onto his property, overhanging the common boundary fence. He declared the encroachment to be a trespass.

The Artises had tried to accommodate. Wilbur admitted that after he contacted them about the tree, they had “cut a few branches from the tree,” but he nonetheless asserted that Artises “know their tree is growing over the fence onto Wilbur’s property and is buckling his fence, but refuse to do anything to stop it; that such trespass is continuing.”

Finally, alleging that Artises had notice and knowledge of the alleged facts, Wilbur accuses them of actual malice and demands punitive damages.

Artises filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that a naturally growing tree is not a nuisance or trespass as a matter of law. The district court agreed and dismissed Wilbur’s feverish litany of abuse.

Wilbur appealed, ending up in Montana’s Supreme Court.

Held: Wilbur had no right to an unobstructed view, and a naturally growing tree cannot constitute a nuisance. However, Wilbur had adequately pled a trespass because he claimed the tree was encroaching and the Artises knew it.

The statutory definition of nuisance provides that anything which is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance.” Section 27-30-101(1), MCA (2009). While it is possible under § 27-30-101(1), MCA, for anything to constitute a nuisance, a nuisance claim must nonetheless plead a factual foundation that satisfies governing legal standards. “A nuisance action may be based upon conduct of a defendant that is either intentional, negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous,” the Court said. A nuisance may either be a nuisance per se or a nuisance per accidens. A nuisance per se or at law is an inherently injurious act, occupation, or structure that is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, without regard to location or surroundings. A nuisance per accidens or in fact “is one which becomes a nuisance by virtue of circumstances and surroundings.”

Likewise, the Court said, a nuisance may also be classified as either absolute or qualified. An absolute nuisance is ” a nuisance, the substance… of which is not negligence, which obviously exposes another to probable injury.” A qualified nuisance, on the other hand, is a nuisance dependent on negligence that consists of anything lawfully but so negligently or carelessly done or permitted as to create a potential and unreasonable risk of harm, which, in due course, results in injury to another.

Montana law has never held that a nuisance claim would lie for any obstruction of view whatsoever. Here, Wilbur alleges that a tree, in the course of its natural growth, has risen tall enough to obstruct his view. Although the complaint broadly claims that Artises’ tree has reduced the aesthetic and monetary value of Wilbur’s property, interfered with his comfortable enjoyment of his property, and offended his senses, the entire factual basis of the claim is that a tree has obstructed his view because of natural growth. The assertion that Artises’ naturally growing tree has obstructed Wilbur’s view does not constitute, as a matter of law, “conduct of a defendant that is either intentional, negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous,” the Court said, or “an inherently injurious act or a condition which “obviously exposes another to probable injury.” The District Court properly granted the Artises’ motion to dismiss Martin’s nuisance claim.

The trespass is another matter, the Court held. Trespass is “the entry of another person or thing that obstructs a property owner’s exclusive possession. A party need not establish actual harm or damages in a traditional trespass action.” One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters land in possession of the other, or causes a thing or third person to do so, or (b) remains on the land, or (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove.

The “intent” element of trespass is fulfilled when an actor desires to cause the consequence of his act, or when he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from his act. Here, the Court said, Wilbur’s complaint alleges a trespass because the Artises’ tree extends over the shared fence and the roots grow onto his property. The complaint alleges that the roots of the tree have damaged Wilbur’s property. Regarding intent, Wilbur claims alleges that the Artises “know their tree is growing over the fence onto the property and is buckling his fence but refuse to do anything to stop it,” that Artises’ conduct is motivated by malice or is in willful, wanton and reckless disregard of Wilburs’ rights,” and that Artises are guilty of actual malice “because they had notice and knowledge of the alleged facts.”

Although the Artises argue that Wilbur’s complaint fails to plead an intention to trespass by way of their tree, the Supreme Court concluded that “for purposes of an M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, intent was adequately pled.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, September 19, 2024

Posted on September 19, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

RIGHT THING, WRONG REASON

The right things usually get done for the wrong reasons. The Internet, which knows all (or soon will) attributes the aphorism to James Carville, but I remember the exact line being penned by Washington columnist Drew Pearson in a political potboiler of his, The President, which I read as a lad in the summer of 1971.

Sorry, James, When it comes to credit for this particular witticism, you didn’t build that.

Today’s case is a reminder to all the states that claim the Massachusetts Rule, the Hawaii Rule, the Virginia Rule and so on that there is nothing new under the sun. Well before those rules came into being, the Washington State Supreme Court grappled with the encroachment issue and reluctantly decided an early version of the Hawaii Rule: where there is encroachment that causes “sensible harm,” the adjoining landowner may either trim back the offending growth or sue to force the tree’s owner to do it.

Ironically, settling the law (the right thing to do) probably got done for the wrong reason (bad blood between neighbors). We have seen how the Massachusetts Rule began in Michigan. Now, it seems the Hawaii Rule may have started in Washington. Sorry, Hawaii, you didn’t build that.

Truly, there’s nothing new under the sun.

Gostina v. Ryland, 116 Wash. 228, 199 P. 298 (Supreme Ct. Wash. 1921). A.L. Ryland had owned his place for many years when new neighbors, the Gostinas, moved in next door. A.L. had a Lombardy poplar tree growing about two feet from the Gostina property and a fir tree in the rear of the property, also about two feet from the division fence. On top of that, A.L. maintained a creeping vine, growing in a rustic box on top of a large stump, a few feet from the division fence, and some raspberry bushes and a rosebush growing near the property line.

About a year after they moved in, the Gostinas had their lawyer write to A.L. to tell him the branches of his fir tree were overhanging the Gostina property and dropping needles and that A.L.’s ivy was running under the fence and onto the Gostinas’ lawn. The lawyer demanded that A.L. cut off the fir tree branches at the point where they crossed the boundary line, remove the ivy from the Gostinas’ property, and keep the tree and ivy from encroaching ever again.

A.L. was unimpressed, so the Gostinas brought a suit for abatement of a nuisance. (And we thought frivolous litigation was a recent phenomenon!) A.L. argued that the lawsuit was merely for spite and vexation, and that the Gostinas knew the tree and ivy were there when they moved in. Only after a neighborly disagreement, A.L. claimed, did the Gostinas sue.

The trial court did not care about such nonsense, holding that where branches of trees overlap adjoining property, the owner of the adjoining property has an absolute legal right to have the overhanging branches removed by a suit of this character.

The Gostinas appealed.

Held: A.L.’s tree and ivy were a nuisance, and the Gostinas’ claimed damages, although ridiculously minor, were enough to permit them to maintain a nuisance action against A.L. Ryland.

The Court agreed that under Washington law, trees and plants growing into the yard of another constituted a nuisance, “to the extent to which the branches overhang the adjoining land. To that extent they are technical nuisances, and the person over whose land they extend may cut them off, or have his action for damages, if any have been sustained therefrom, and an abatement of the nuisance against the owner or occupant of the land on which they grow; but he may not cut down the tree, neither can he cut the branches thereof beyond the extent to which they overhang his soil.”

From ancient times, the Court said, it has been a principle of law that the landowner has the exclusive right to the space above the surface of his or her property: “To whomsoever the soil belongs, he also owns to the sky and to the depths. The owner of a piece of land owns everything above it and below it to an indefinite extent.” On the same principle, the Court held that the branches of trees extending over adjoining land constitute a nuisance, at least in the sense that the owner of the land encroached upon may himself cut off the offending growth.

A property owner may not “maintain an action against another for the intrusion of roots or branches of a tree which is not poisonous or noxious in its nature. His remedy in such cases is to clip or lop off the branches or cut the roots at the line.” What it came down to, the Court held, was that “the powerful aid of a court of equity by injunction can be successfully invoked only in a strong and mischievous case of pressing necessity” and there must be “satisfactory proof of real substantial damage.”

Here, the Court said, what the Gostinas complained of was “so insignificant that respondents did not even claim them or prove any amount in damages–but simply proved that the leaves falling from the overhanging branches of the poplar tree caused them some additional work in caring for their lawn; and that the needles from the overhanging branches of the fir tree caused them some additional work in keeping their premises neat and clean, and fell upon their roof and caused some stoppage of gutters; and that sometimes, when the wind blew in the right directions, the needles blew into the house and annoyed the occupants. We cannot avoid holding, therefore, that these are actual, sensible damages, and not merely nominal, and, although insignificant, the insignificance of the injury goes to the extent of recovery, and not to the right of action.”

Since the Gostinas had the statutory right to bring an action for abatement of a nuisance and had shown some “actual and sensible damages, although insignificant,” they are entitled to go forward with the suit. “The remainder of the trees will doubtless shed their leaves and needles upon the respondents’ premises,” the Court prophesied, “but this they must endure positively without remedy.”

The Court was not really that fooled: this was a spite suit, but that alone was not disqualifying. While the Gostinas’ action against A.L. “has some appearance of being merely a vexatious suit,” the Court said, A.L. did “admit that the tree boughs do overhang respondent’s lot to some extent. There is sufficient foundation in fact to sustain a case…”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, September 12, 2024

Posted on September 12, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

FISTS, NOSES AND TREES

Everyone’s heard the old canard that “the right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Imagine your nose is a 65-foot tall maple tree, and my fist is a backhoe. Good luck with that – most imaginations aren’t quite that agile.

Here’s the problem we’ve been looking at the past several days. We all know about “self-help,” the venerable old Massachusetts Rule that limits a landowner to trimming away encroaching branches and roots from a neighbor’s tree up to the property line. Michaelson v. Nutting – and virtually every encroachment case decided in the eight decades since that decision – has given a property owner the right to trim back a neighbor’s tree to the boundary without any limitation.

At the same time, we all know about boundary trees, those trees whose trunks enter the earth smack on the property line, so that tree is attached to the ground in both properties. Boundary trees are special, and the general rule is that neither property owner may trim the tree without the consent of the other.

But what happens when a neighbor’s tree is not on the boundary, but so encroaches on a landowner’s property – both above ground and below ground – that the practical effect of the landowner’s Massachusetts Rule self-help will be to kill the tree? Well, like many things in life, that depends… In Washington State, the tree’s death is just so much collateral damage and tough luck to the tree’s owner. In California and New York, on the other hand, it’s Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood: the Massachusetts Rule yields to the imperative that the tree not be harmed.

Remember King Solomon? When two women appeared in front of him arguing over who was the mother of a baby, the King proposed to settle it by cutting the baby in half so that each woman would get 50 percent of the child. That threat was enough to smoke out the imposter. In today’s case, dividing the tree in half would have had the same effect as cutting up the infant (albeit with less blood).

The Alvarezes own a nice place in Vermont, complete with a view of Lake Champlain. They have a 65-year-old maple tree next to the property line of their neighbors, the Katzes. It was close, but the b ase of the tree was completely on Alvarez’s property, so this was no boundary tree the parties were dealing with.

The tree had been standing for almost seven decades. In fact, when the Alvarezes bought the property 20 years ago, the maple had already sent roots and branches across the boundary between the two parcels.

The Katzes, who also enjoy a view of Lake Champlain, have planned for a number of years to add on to their house, essentially doubling its size with a two-story addition. The only problem – or at least, the only problem we care about – was the maple tree. To add on, the Katzes would have to cut away about half of the maple tree’s branches and roots, in all likelihood killing the tree.

The Alvarezes and Katzes tried to resolve the problem amicably, but – just as happened with the women in front of King Solomon – there really wasn’t any middle ground. Either the Katzes would get their way, building onto their house and killing the tree, or the Alvarezes would have it their way. Like Dr. Seuss’s north-going and south-going Zax, neither neighbor would budge.

But then Katz somehow learned all about the Massachusetts Rule. It dawned on him that he could cut back the offending maple tree to the property line, both roots and branches. Sure, the tree might die, but the Massachusetts Rule said nothing about what happened to the tree after a neighbor used “self-cutting” trimming on it.

The Alvarezes ran to court and obtained an injunction against Katz. The trial court found that trimming the tree as Katz proposed would probably kill it. The injunction prohibited cutting away only about 25 percent of the tree, about half of what the Katzes needed for their ambitious plans.

The Katzes appealed, and the Vermont Supreme Court threw out the injunction. It held that the Massachusetts Rule was a blunt object, and had always been one. A landowner owns everything above and below ground level, and that owner can cut anything he or she wants to cut, without regard for the effect of the cutting. The Court said that was the law in Vermont and just about everywhere else.

The Supreme Court seemed a little uncomfortable with its decision, but it ruled, in essence, that the law is the law, and that’s the way Vermont had always done it. It noted, in a hint that was as subtle as an anvil, that in cases where Massachusetts-style self-help had been limited – such as in Booksa v. Patel – the theory that had been advanced was that of nuisance. In other words, the Alvarezes could have argued that Katz’s proposed trimming would so endanger the tree that it would interfere with their enjoyment of their property. Recall in Booksa, the court ordered the defendant to trim the encroaching tree reasonably. The Vermont Supreme Court telegraphed that it would probably have done the same if the Alvarezes’ lawyer had only thought to make the argument. Oops.

Alvarez v. Katz, 124 A.3d 839, 199 Vt. 510 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2015). The Katzes own property in South Burlington in the Shelburne Bay area. The Alvarezes own the adjoining lot just to the north of the Katzes. The Alvarezes have a 65-ft. tall maple tree, the trunk of which is located entirely on their property. About half of the branches and roots from the tree cross the property boundary and encroach onto the Katz lot. Some roots extend under the Katzes’ existing deck.

For several years the Katzes have sought to expand their home by adding a two-story addition on the rear. The plans for the construction of the addition would require cutting the roots and branches that are encroaching onto their property. This could encompass up to half of the tree’s roots and branches.

The Alvarezes and the Katzes have been unable to amicably resolve the problem of the maple tree. In 2013, when the Katzes considered taking unilateral action to trim the tree’s roots and branches, the Alvarezes filed for an injunction. The superior court found it more likely than not that removal of 50% of the tree’s roots and branches would result in the premature death of the tree, perhaps within five years and probably within ten from the time of cutting. The court employed what it called the “urban-tree rule,” under which trimming the roots or branches of an encroaching tree may be proscribed if the trimming will destroy the tree. The injunction barred the trimming of more than 25% of the roots and branches of the tree.

The Katzes appealed.

The Zaxes wouldn’t budge, either …

Held: The injunction was vacated. The Supreme Court reaffirmed “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 has been clear for almost 100 years, since Cobb v. Western Union Telegraph Co., (a 1916 decision that stated the Massachusetts Rule before there ever was a Massachusetts Rule). Cobb held that “it 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.” The Supreme Court criticized the trial court for conjuring up an “urban-tree rule” that would be an exception to Cobb. The trial court had considered this case to be one of first impression in Vermont because of the anticipated adverse – and likely fatal – effect the root-and-branch cutting would have had on the encroaching tree. The Supreme Court held that any attempt to “distinguish” Cobb, that is, to find that the Cobb case was somehow different just because the Cobb tree was located in a rural setting, was wrong.

Further, the Supreme Court said, the “urban-tree rule” does not enjoy the support attributed to it by the trial court. Outside of two cases, the California decision in Booksa and one obscure New York decision, the Massachusetts Rule (which maybe we should have called the “Vermont Rule”) enjoys extremely widespread support. What’s more, the Court reasoned, the Vermont legislature has had 99 years to modify the Cobb holding by statute, and it has not bothered to do so. The Supreme Court concluded that the “right to cut encroaching trees where they enter the land of another, without regard to the impact on the encroaching tree by such cutting, is well-established under Vermont law.”

The Supreme Court noted that at common law, the right to cut encroaching boughs and roots historically counterbalanced a landowner’s right to grow shade trees on his land, regardless of the impact those trees may have in casting shade or encroaching upon the neighboring property. Common law provided no claim for damages caused by encroaching roots or branches. Instead, the remedy was one of self-help, allowing the cutting of roots and branches to the extent of encroachment.

Where other jurisdictions have departed from the common-law rule and allowed actions for damages as a result of encroaching roots or branches, they have generally relied upon nuisance principles. Even where such actions have been permitted, those jurisdictions continue to recognize the right to self-help. In this case, the Alverezes did not raise a nuisance claim, so “the issue of whether a nuisance claim might exist for the encroachment of roots and branches from the Alvarezes’ tree is not presently before the Court.”

The Supreme Court subtly suggested that the proper way for the Alvarozes to address the problem would be through the law of nuisance ...

The Supreme Court subtly suggested that the proper way for the Alvarezes to address the problem would be through the law of nuisance …

The Supreme Court defined the conundrum as follows: “[T]his case presents the competing interests of neighboring property owners. On the one hand, [the Katzes] have an interest in using their land, which they have purchased and upon which they pay taxes, as they see fit, within permissible regulations, free from limitations imposed by encroaching roots and branches from the neighbors’ tree, which they did not invite and for which they receive no benefit. The Alvarezes seek to restrict the use of the Katz property by preventing the removal of branches and roots on land that is not theirs and for which they have given nothing of benefit to [the Katzes] for suffering the encroachment. On the other hand, the Alvarezes wish to continue to enjoy their tree, which has been there for many years, without placing its viability in peril due to the construction that [the Katzes] wish to undertake.”

The Court observed that if the Alvarezes had the right to have their tree encroach onto the neighboring property, the obvious next question would be to what extent the encroached-upon property owner must suffer such an encroachment. The Supreme Court admitted that on some occasions the “exercise of self-help may result in the immediate or eventual loss of an encroaching tree, given the long-recognized rule in Vermont and its widespread support elsewhere, we decline to depart from the common-law rule in favor of the approach adopted by the superior court.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Wednesday, September 11, 2024

Posted on September 11, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

A KINDER, GENTLER MASSACHUSETTS RULE

We saw last week that they’re some pretty tough nuts out in Washington. Ironically known as “The Evergreen State,” Washington law holds that if I hack off the roots or branches of your tree up to my property line, even if it ensures that your tree will end up in a “never-green state” (which is to say, dead, dead, dead), that’s just fine. 

Today, we’re looking at the other side of the country and, for that matter, the other side of the coin. New York State takes a much more liberal view of things. Every homeowner still has the first prong of the Massachusetts Rule at his or her fingertips (or the tip of the chainsaw). That is, a landowner may trim branches or roots up to the property line.

However, there is a caveat. New York has codified some of its common law. That is, it has tried to distill some of the court-made law from years and years of jurisprudence into its statutes. One such code relates to real estate law, and is called New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.

Called the RPAPL, an unpronounceable acronym if ever there was one, that code contains § 861, which makes a landowner liable for “despoiling” a neighbor’s tree without the neighbor’s permission. In today’s case, the court let the Fliegmans go forward with their complaint that construction contractors hired by their neighbors, the Rubins – while not setting foot on their land – nevertheless caused three Fliegman trees to topple by cutting roots that had grown into the Rubins’ property. The Rubins had the right to cut encroaching roots, the court held, but not so as to harm the tree’s support structure.

Fliegman v. Rubin, 781 N.Y.S.2d 624 (S.Ct. 2nd Dist., Nov. 20, 2003). After three large trees located on Agi and Mendel Fliegmans’ property fell, damaging their home, they sued their next-door neighbors Liebel and Dorothy Rubin, as well as their contractors. The Fliegmans argued that the trees fell because of an excavation on the Rubins’ property as part of a house construction project.

They sued, claiming negligence, trespass and violation of New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 861, Action for cutting, removing, injuring or destroying trees or timber, and damaging lands thereon.

The trial court threw out the Fliegmans’ suit, and they promptly appealed.

Held: The Fliegmans could recover damages.

The fallen trees at issue were located on the Fliegmans’ property, but their roots and branches encroached onto the Rubins’ property. At common law, adjoining property owners – such as the Rubins – are permitted to trim tree branches and roots which encroach onto their property from a neighboring lot. However, the appellate court said, the right to self-help is limited – in that an adjoining landowner’s right to engage in self-help “does not extend to the destruction or injury to the main support system of the tree.”

New York RPAPL 861(1) provides that “if any person cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree… or otherwise despoils a tree on the land of another, without the owner’s leave… an action may be maintained against him by the owner…” This is in accordance with common law principles, the Court held.

RPAPL 861 does not require that a trespass occur in order to impose liability. Instead, damages may be recovered under the common law and pursuant to RPAPL 861 if a tree is, among other things, “cut down or despoiled even if the defendants herein did not enter onto the plaintiffs’ property.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, September 9, 2024

Posted on September 9, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

FOOTBALL IS (NOT SO) BACK!

It’s supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year… high school games every Friday night, our beloved Ohio State Buckeyes (and how those Wolverines?) on Saturday, and the Super Bowl-bound Cleveland Browns on Sundays.

In honor of the gridiron season, we resort to cheap metaphors today while considering an unusual and (to us) troubling tree law case. Change the fact pattern by about three feet, and the outcome would have been the opposite of what the court ruled. That is, if Jennifer’s trees had been growing a yard or so south of where they were rooted, they would have been boundary trees. Neighbors Tony and Xiaoye couldn’t have touched them. But because the trunks and root flares of the conifers were all on Jennifer’s land, Tony got away with whacking away so much root support that Jennifer had to take the three trees down.

“Can they do that?” you ask, because you seem to remember a California case that said otherwise. Good recall, tree law fan. Unfortunately, the answer is pretty much, “Yeah, in Washington, they can do that.” But somehow it seems that the answer ought to be otherwise, that your right to Massachusetts Rule-style hacking at your neighbor’s tree should be informed by some kind of a duty not to kill the tree in the process.

Trigger warning: the outcome of this case is tragic for the trees involved, and those sensitive readers among us who cower at the sound of chainsaws might be needlessly upset.

Mustoe v. Ma, 371 P.3d 544 (Wash.App. 2016). Jennifer Mustoe had two large Douglas fir trees located entirely on her property, about three feet from the property line. Her neighbors were Anthony Jordan and Xiaoye Ma. In October 2013, Tony dug an 18-to-20-inch deep ditch on his property along the border of Jennifer’s lot. In the process, he exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only 3-4 feet from the trunks, a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side of the trees. The trees were thus exposed to southerly winds with no support, making the damaged trees likely to fall on Jennifer’s home.

The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418; the cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913.

Jennifer filed suit against Xiaoye and Tony, asserting that Tony had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees. The trial court dismissed Jennifer’s claims, holding that Tony was entitled to remove those portions of roots that had encroached onto his and Xiaoye’s property and that in so doing, he did not owe Jennifer a duty of due care to prevent damage to the trees.

Jennifer appealed.

Held: The Court rejected Jennifer’s claims.

Jennifer started out a field goal behind, because she was compelled to acknowledge that Washington law lets an adjoining landowner engage in self-help and trim the branches and roots of a neighbor’s tree that encroach onto his or her property. Yet, Jennifer argued, the right to self-help does not extend to removing the tree itself, and the State’s common “does not immunize a landowner against liability for damage to the trimmed trees” and argues that the Court should hold that in exercising self-help, a landowner owes a duty of care to prevent damage to the trees themselves.

Jennifer thought she’d put one through the uprights and tie the score, but the Court played Lucy to her Charlie Brown. The law was clear, the Court said, that an adjoining landowner may trim only those branches or roots that encroach on his own property, but it did not hold that a landowner owes a duty to act in good faith or reasonably to prevent damage to the trees.

Jennifer also claimed that under state law, all members of society owe a broader legal duty to their fellow citizens and must not use their own property in such a way as to cause injury to others. She cited an exception to the common enemy doctrine in water trespass cases as an example of this duty. The common enemy doctrine allows landowners to dispose of unwanted surface water in any way they see fit, without liability for resulting damage to their neighbors, but a “due care” exception requires that a landowner change surface water flow in good faith and in such a way as not to cause unnecessary damage.

The Court rejected Jenn’s comparison, observing that no court had ever extended the “due care” exception beyond surface water. The Court said, “Surface water is a common enemy precisely because it is a force of nature which may indiscriminately affect any landowner. As such, each landowner may defend against it so long as he or she does not do so in a manner that unnecessarily redirects the wrath of the common enemy upon a neighbor. Unlike surface water, tree roots and branches are not a force of nature that indiscriminately wreak havoc among adjoining landowners. Instead, they are an encroachment upon the land of one’s neighbor.

Jennifer, facing second and long, argued that Booska v. Patel, a California case, found that adjoining landowners had a duty to act reasonably in trimming encroachments where neighbors’ trees were concerned. Citing a decision from the other end of the country, Jennifer argued that in Fliegman v. Rubin, a New York court – relying on Booksa – reversed the trial court’s summary dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims for damages to his trees allegedly resulting from the defendant’s severance of roots that had encroached on to his property. The Fliegman court held there was an issue as to whether severance of the trees’ roots damaged the plaintiff’s trees because “the right to self-help is limited, in that an adjoining landowner’s right to engage in self-help ‘does not extend to the destruction or injury to the main support system of the tree… .'”

Jennifer’s court was unswayed, holding that Booska and Fliegman appeared to be “outliers.” In Alvarez v. Katz, the Vermont Supreme Court rejected the holdings in Booska and Fliegman, finding that the “right to cut encroaching trees where they enter the land of another, without regard to the impact on the encroaching tree by such cutting, is well established under Vermont law.”

Here, the Court was likewise persuaded that the law in Washington was consistent with the general rule as applied in Vermont.

Pinned deep in her own territory on third down, Jennifer aired it out. She contended that her nuisance action against Tony and Xiaoye should go forward because Tony’s excavation and removal of tree roots was unreasonable in relation to the harm it caused to her trees. A nuisance is an unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of property. RCW 7.48.010 defines an actionable nuisance as “whatever is injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of the life and property.

The fundamental question in a nuisance issue is whether the use to which land is put can be considered reasonable in relation to all the facts and circumstances. Tony argued that Jennifer had no action for nuisance because she had no legally recognized right. The Court agreed that Jennifer had not established that she had any legal cause for complaint or interference with the lawful removal of the roots on Ma’s property.

A nuisance claim will fail if it is nothing more than a negligence claim “in the garb of nuisance” unless the negligence claim has merit. Where the alleged nuisance is a result of the alleged negligent conduct, the rules of negligence are applied.

Here, Jennifer’s nuisance claim arose from Tony’s actions that damaged the trees; the nuisance is the result of his alleged breach of duty. But there was no breach of duty: because Jennifer’s negligence claim failed, her nuisance claim did, too.

On fourth down and a mile, with only a few seconds left, Jennifer threw the Hail Mary. She complained that she was entitled to damages under the timber trespass statute, RCW 64.12.030. The statute reads, “Whenever any person shall cut down, girdle, or otherwise injure, or carry off any tree… timber, or shrub on the land of another person, … without lawful authority, in an action by the person, city, or town, against the person committing the trespasses or any of them, any judgment for the plaintiff shall be for treble the amount of damages claimed or assessed.”

Alas, the ball fell short. By its own terms, the Court said, the timber trespass statute applied only to persons acting without lawful authority. Because Tony did not act unlawfully when he removed roots that encroached onto his property, the claim fails.

– Tom Root