Case of the Day – Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Posted on July 30, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

TREE GONNA DO WHAT A TREE GONNA DO

When I was a kid, we had a cottonwood in the far backyard that my father christened “The Mess Tree.” It was not a sobriquet of affection.

The Mess Tree seemed to shed leaves and twigs all 12 months of the year. It was stubbornly marcescent, slow rolling its autumnal leaf drop from late August through February. Its twig production was prodigious: we all knew never to walk barefooted anywhere near the drip line. And when it released its seeds in June, the backyard looked as though it had been dusted with an early November snow.

Until I became responsible for my own yard, I could not understand my father’s disgust at The Mess Tree. But I am now responsible for a pair of cottonwoods in my own side yard, and I have empathy – a little late in coming, I admit – for Dad’s frustration.

For that matter, like many people, I understand Helena and Joe Ponte’s vexation at Silverio DaSilva’s weeping willow. As unhappy as Dad was at his cottonwood, it was his cottonwood: he could remedy the problem with a single call to our neighborhood tree service. But when Silverio’s tree rained its ration of sap, twigs and other debris onto the Pontes’ lawn and driveway, all they could do is demand that Silverio cut it down.

He would not.

Finally, when Helena slipped on some wet leaves and twigs, breaking her ankle, the Pontes brought in their lawyer.

Satisfaction did not follow. Silverio’s weeping willow was a fine, healthy tree. It was just doing what trees do. And that, the Court said, was fine. A tree gonna do what a tree gonna do, and the law won’t get in its way.

Ponte v. DaSilva, 1982 Mass.App.Div. 6 (1982). Helena Ponte lived next to Silverio DaSilva and his magnificent weeping willow tree. The tree, standing about four feet from Silverio’s boundary with Helena, overhung the picket fence and Helena’s driveway.

Helena began noticing all of the leaves, sap and branches that fell from the tree onto her driveway about two years before the accident. She complained to Silverio, demanding he cut down the tree. Leaves and debris were clogging Helena’s gutters and swimming pool filter. Sap and tree debris (leaves and twigs, no doubt, inasmuch as willows don’t have much fruit) fell on Helena’s Studebaker. And of course, Helena darkly foretold, there was the ever-present slip-and-fall risk.

Helena’s attorney then wrote to Silverio, complaining that Helen’s husband had already fallen on the leaves and debris. The letter portended similar incidents unless the tree was removed.

Sure enough, about 10 days later, Helena fell due to the leaves and sap, breaking her ankle. She sued.

The trial court found that the tree was not diseased and that the leaves, sap and debris which fell were due to the natural characteristics of weeping willow trees. They do, after all, “weep.” Nevertheless, the trial court awarded Helena $15,000 and her husband another $3,000 for loss of consortium (which we will not endeavor to describe here).

Silverio appealed.

Held: Helena and Joseph got nothing, and the tree kept on being a tree.

The crucial issue, the Court of Appeals said, was whether under the circumstances Silverio owed a legal duty to Helena and Joseph to remove the tree. If so, then he would be liable for the damages caused by a breach of that duty.

The Pontes claimed essentially that the weeping willow was a nuisance because it bothered them. But the test for nuisance, the Court held, was not whether the conduct or activity would be objectionable to a hypersensitive person, but rather whether a normal person in the community would find the conduct at issue clearly offensive and annoying.

The Court observed that the tree had been there for some time, and it was obviously quite alive. No evidence in the record showed the tree to be a hazard (beyond Helena’s ankle, of course) to life or property. Trees “whose roots or branches extend beyond the boundary line,” the Court said, “have been held not to constitute a nuisance in themselves.” In fact, the Court noted, “the Restatement of Torts suggests that where the tree is a part of the natural condition of the land, there is no liability for private nuisance.”

The Court characterized Michalson v. Nutting (the case that was the origin of the Massachusetts Rule) as addressing the notion, albeit obliquely, of a tree as a nuisance. There, the Court said, “the Supreme Judicial Court held that the natural and reasonable extension of the roots and boughs of trees into adjoining property was damnum absque injuria.” The rationale given for this approach “is that to allow recovery in such situations would inundate the courts with frivolous and vexatious suits.”

But Helena argued that the underpinnings of the Michalson case had eroded to the point that a new theory of liability would and should make the defendant legally responsible in a case such as this. The Court dismissed her argument for a change in the law, noting that the line of cases she relied on to make her point all involved trees that were diseased, decayed or dead. Silverio’s weeping willow, on the other hand, was very healthy.

The right of a landowner to use and enjoy it for lawful purposes, the Court said, must be weighed against the likelihood of substantial harm to a neighboring landowner in cases of private nuisance. A dead, diseased or decayed tree has little or no utility to its owner and poses a foreseeable threat to adjoining landowners from falling limbs. A live tree, on the other hand, provides shade and will generally enhance the landowners’ property. The fact that leaves or other debris will naturally fall from live and healthy trees that are harmless in and of themselves and that such falling leaves and twigs might cause some inconvenience or annoyance to neighbors does not render the tree’s owner liable for damages.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day -Tuesday, July 2, 2024

Posted on July 2, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

NOW LOOK WHAT YOU’VE DONE!

Rarely (as in “I don’t recall when I’ve ever said this before”) do I caution that the prevailing law in any particular state is wrong, and likely to be cruisin’ for a bruisin’ the next time an appellate court has to think about it. But I feel comfortable issuing that warning about today’s case.

From Ohio (home of rock ‘n roll, pro football, the first guy to walk on the moon, the brothers who turned a bicycle into the first airplane, and a ton of other cool things), comes a case that pretty much runs smack into Fancher, Herring, the Hawaii Rule, and a raft of other cases reflecting the modern view that a homeowner whose tree is wreaking havoc on the neighbor’s property may be ordered by a court to fix the damage at his expense.

To be fair, this case may be proof of the old legal aphorism that “hard cases make bad law.” Even the most cursory reading of the facts suggests that Dave Rababy may well have been a horse’s ass, hounding his neighbor because a tree dropped leaves and twigs on his property. Speaking as a guy who owns all of my five southerly neighbors’ leaves every fall – and these things are the size of dinner plates – I understand how it can be irritating to have other peoples’ leave on your lawn. But I would never sue them over it. I don’t think I would…

Dave had no such compunction, and his emesis of woe delivered to the court made him the boy who cried wolf. He howled so loudly about leaves and twigs and that his trimming crew was not allowed to trespass on Roy’s property and hack away at the offending tree, and minutiae of a similar nature, that his real complaint – his driveway was being heaved and foundations dislodged by the roots – got lost in the underbrush. In Fancher, Whitesell and even Iny, such damage was enough to get the neighbor’s tree declared a nuisance. If Dave had exercised a little plaintiff self-control, he might have gotten there, too.

We are too urban and too suburban, and our properties are too developed for the Massachusetts Rule to be the exclusive remedy for genuine harm done by a neighbor’s tree. That is the way the law is trending throughout the civilized world, and it is bound to reach Ohio sooner or later.

Rababy v. Metter, 30 N.E.3d 1018 (Ct.App. Cuyahoga Co., 2015). David Rababy and Roy Metter were next-door neighbors. Dave’s driveway abutted Roy’s property in certain places and nearly abuts in others. A fence separated the properties, and a stand of mature trees ran along the fence on Roy’s side of the boundary line.

Dave sued Roy for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and interference with a business contract. Dave asserted that trees at the edge of Roy’s property extended over his own property, and dropped leaves, needles, sap, and branches onto his car and home, and that some of the trees were rotten. He said the trees cast shadows over his property and cause mold growth on his roof, as well as damaged his driveway and foundation.

Dave complained he had a company to trim the overhanging branches, but Roy’s daughter prevented the unnamed landscape service company from properly performing this work. The complaint alleged the trees constituted an ongoing nuisance and trespass and that Roy negligently maintained the trees. Dave asked for $52,500: $37,000 for future tree trimming services and $15,000 in compensatory damages.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Dave argued that on “an ongoing basis, Roy’s trees encroach onto my property, specifically over my home and driveway. His trees deposit leaves, debris, and sap onto my property, causing damage.” Dave also repeated the claim about Roy’s daughter running off the tree trimmers.

Roy argued that he owed no duty to Dave to trim otherwise healthy trees on his property. He claimed the trees were mature and preexisted either party’s ownership of the property. He said that a year before, Dave hired Cartwright Tree Service to trim the row of pine trees that ran along the driveway. He said no one complained when Cartwright trimmed the overhanging branches from Dave’s property free, but when Cartwright began trimming branches and trees back further than the property line, Roy’s daughter objected. Roy said that he has no objection to Dave trimming the overhanging branches back to the property line.

Dave replied with new allegations that the trees in question were decaying or dead. Attached to the reply was a new affidavit that averred that the trees were decaying and dangerous and that one had fallen on his property. He included a picture of a tree that appears to have fallen across a driveway. However, the affidavit was neither signed nor notarized.

The trial court granted Roy’s motion for summary judgment and denied Dave’s. Dave appealed.

Gen. Robert E. Lee – a man rapidly being consigned to the ash head of history – knew something about duty … and even he couldn’t have found that Roy owed one to Dave.

Held: Roy owed Dave no duty, so the trial court’s dismissal of the case was upheld.

In order to succeed in a negligence action, the Court said, Dave must demonstrate that Roy owed him a duty, that Roy breached the duty, and that he suffered damages that proximately resulted from Roy’s breach. Here, Dave offered evidence that falling pine needles, leaves, sap, and sticks had damaged his car, driveway, and roof. He also alleges, without evidentiary support, that encroaching tree roots damaged his driveway and home.

While he showed damage, Dave was unable to show that Roy owed him any duty. A landowner is generally not responsible for the losses caused by the natural condition of the land. Instead, the Court observed, states generally allow one impacted by such growth the remedy of self-help. A privilege existed at common law, such that a landowner could cut off, sever, destroy, mutilate, or otherwise eliminate branches of an adjoining landowner’s tree that encroached on his land. But, the Court said, whether a separate remedy exists is an open question.

The Massachusetts Rule provides that in almost all circumstances, the sole remedy for damages resulting from the natural dropping of leaves and other ordinary debris from trees is the common law remedy of self-help. The rule does provide a limited exception for dead trees, just as Ohio has established a duty for urban landowners of reasonable care relative to the tree [hat overhangs a public street, including inspection to make sure that it is safe.” Where constructive or actual knowledge of an unreasonably dangerous condition exists on the land of an urban landowner, such as a dead tree, the duty prong of a negligence claim may be satisfied.

The reasoning set forth in support of the Massachusetts Rule, the Court said, is apt to the facts of this case: “[T]o grant a landowner a cause of action every time tree branches, leaves, vines, shrubs, etc., encroach upon or fall on his property from his neighbor’s property, might well spawn innumerable and vexatious lawsuits.” The Court thus adopted the Massachusetts Rule as the law of this jurisdiction.

But Dave also argued that in Ohio a “landowner in an urban area has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to others from decaying, defective or unsound trees of which such landowner has actual or constructive notice.” Dave contended Roy’s trees were in such a defective condition and thus constituted a nuisance. Dave also argued that Roy, an urban landowner, had a duty to inspect his trees and protect others from a dangerous condition created by any unsound trees. Even if such a duty existed, the Court said, it only is breached when the owner has actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

Leaves – often a pain in the arse, but seldom a nuisance

The Court held that Dave put forth no evidence that any of the trees constituted a dangerous condition of which Roy was aware or should have been aware. He presented no any evidence that the trees are dead, decaying, or unsound, and cited no case holding that “the normal yearly life-cycle of a tree and the natural shedding of leaves, twigs, and sap constituted a nuisance. Thus, he provided no compelling justification for a court to hold that Roy’s trees case constituted a nuisance or a dangerous condition. The problems Dave had experienced with the trees “are the natural consequence of living in an area beautified by trees. Dave’s remedy is to trim tree limbs that overhang his property back to the property line, to which Roy averred he has no objection.”

The trees at issue in this case do not constitute a nuisance, and Roy is not negligent in regard to them.

Dave also asserted that the trees on Roy’s property constituted a trespass. But the elements of a successful trespass claim include an unauthorized intentional act, and entry upon land in the possession of another. Here, there is no intentional act. Dave claimed that Roy’s actions of not removing or trimming the trees constitute an intentional act. But, the Court said, as it explained, Dave’s remedy for intrusion by vegetation is to trim it back to the property line.

In sum, Dave’s claims that detritus falling from trees from the neighboring property constituted a trespass, a nuisance, and negligence were simply not actionable. The Court cited a Maryland case that “it is undesirable to categorize living trees, plants, roots, or vines as ‘nuisances’ to be abated. Consequently, we decline to impose liability upon an adjoining landowner for the ‘natural processes and cycles’ of trees, plants, roots, and vines.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, June 27, 2024

Posted on June 27, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

A eucalyptus tree, similar to the one that offended Ms. Cannon.

There was a time, back when people of grit populated the land, that a landowner only had one choice when his neighbor’s trees encroached – to cut ‘em back. The Massachusetts Rule was the coin of the realm: if you didn’t like your neighbor’s tree overhanging your eaves, or its roots wrapping around your sewer line, you only had one option. The courts didn’t want to hear about it. Self-reliance was what it was all about.

Then along came the Hawaii Rule, which suggested that a naturally growing tree could be or could become a nuisance and that an aggrieved landowner could sue for an order requiring its removal. One rule does not necessarily negate the other. So when does one oil up the chainsaw, and when does one fire up the word processor?

The Massachusetts Rule is, generally speaking, a blunt instrument. It’s one thing to cut away branches that pose a threat (or even an inconvenience) to your property. But what if cutting a limb back to the property line leaves a 15-foot leafless stub extending from the branch to the boundary. That’s not necessarily according to ANSI Standard A300, but on the other hand, you don’t have the right to trim it properly unless your neighbor consents to you coming onto his or her land to do so.

Or, more dangerously, what if you cut back roots to the extent that the tree loses too much subsurface support, and falls on your neighbor’s new last-of-its-kind Bugatti Chiron? Are you liable? After all, you did no more than what the Massachusetts Rule permitted you to do.

The Hawaii Rule, on the other hand, is Doug Lewellyn’s dream. What an All-American solution – let’s sue! When is harm sensible? When your foundation walls collapse? When a dead branch falls on your Tourbillon? When leaves clog the filter on your swimming pool? How much harm is enough?

Joan Cannon lived next to Lamar Dunn. Joan was unhappy with the roots from the Dunns’ eucalyptus tree, which were encroaching underground onto her land, as roots are wont to do. After all, a tree will quite often send roots out 35 feet or more from the base of the trunk, and the root system has little regard for some lines drawn on a recorder’s map.

We’re not sure why Joan was so exercised. Maybe she was naturally crotchety. Perhaps she was unusually territorial. Maybe her neighbor had a nice Bugatti, while Joan drove a Yugo. What we can be sure of is that the eucalyptus roots weren’t really causing any harm.

Sometimes encroaching roots can be an inconvenience.

That didn’t stop Joan from suing the Dunns. The trial court denied an award of any damages and refused to order Lamar the appellee to remove the offending roots and tree. Joan appealed.

The Court of Appeals considered the classic Restatement of the Law trespass approach, which held simply that if a neighbor owns something that trespasses, he or she has to remove it if there is a duty to remove it, regardless of whether it causes harm or not. That’s the rub, the court said. When does such a duty arise?

The court found guidance in the Restatement on nuisance and held that a duty to remove offending branches or roots arose when some actual and sensible or substantial damage had been sustained. Joan’s general objection to the unseen eucalyptus roots did not equate to harm. Thus, the roots could remain.

Cannon v. Dunn, 145 Ariz. 115, 700 P.2d 502 (Ariz.App. Div. 2 1985). This case involves the liability of Lamar Dunn, an adjoining landowner, for roots from a eucalyptus tree that invaded the subsurface of land belonging to his neighbor, Joan Cannon. The trial court found that the roots had caused no actual damage, and denied an award ordering the Dunns to remove the offending roots and tree.

Joan appealed.

Held: Dunn did not have to remove the roots. The Court of Appeals rejected Cannon’s argument that it should apply the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158 (1965), which stated that “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… fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove.”

The Court said that it was “obvious that one must first determine whether there is a duty to remove the object and that in this case § 158(c) really begs the question.” More to the point, the Court observed, was the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 840 (on nuisances), which held that a possessor of land is not liable to his adjoining landowner for a nuisance resulting solely from a natural condition of the land.

Ms. Cannon could not prove any damages flowing from the alleged encroachment … unlike this guy.

The Court paid lip service to the Massachusetts Rule, noting that Arizona law permitted a “landowner who sustains injury by the branches or roots of a tree or plant on adjoining land intruding into his domain, regardless of their non-poisonous character may, without notice, cut off the offending branches or roots at the property line.” At the injured landowner’s expense, of course.

But when some actual and sensible or substantial damage has been sustained, the Court said, the injured landowner may maintain a nuisance action for abatement of the nuisance, and compel the removal of the branches or roots at the tree owner’s expense. However, where no injury has been sustained, no lawsuit be brought for either an injunction or damages.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, June 7, 2024

Posted on June 7, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

EVERYTHING WE KNOW IS WRONG – PART 1

If there are two basic building blocks of tree law, they are the Massachusetts Rule – that New England rock of individualism and self-reliance – and the Hawaii Rule – that piece of creeping socialism that lets a property owner use the courts to force a neighbor to remove a tree that was a bother (we said that tongue-in-cheek).

After running out of gas and the funds needed to pay for it, I was homebound. For something to do, I went on a quest to identify the legal precedent in every state that addresses the issue of the encroachment of overhanging limbs and subsurface roots, so that we could present a state-by-state compendium of encroachment law. It was either that or cut the grass on my hands and knees with a pair of scissors (no gas for the mower). Wisely, I opted to go the encroachment route.

I had not even gotten out of the Northwest Territory – remember what that is? – when I found that the Massachusetts Rule did not start in Massachusetts. What’s more, as we see today, the Hawaii Rule was the law of the land in the Hoosier State back when Hawaii still had a queen, and the Americans had yet to diddle in the affairs of the Kingdom in order to engineer annexation.

Indiana’s rule can be summed up as this: a tree that encroaches on a neighbor’s property and creates a nuisance – producing such a condition that in the judgment of reasonable persons is “naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibility, tastes, and habits” – has to be removed at the expense of the tree’s owners.

A tough place, Indiana… In today’s case, a tree that had once belonged to the plaintiff – who had sold the property to the defendant – had grown into the boundary fence, damaging it. The roots raised some sidewalk slabs on a walkway the plaintiff maintained near the boundary. The plaintiff, unwilling to fix the rather minor damage ($2,500 in 2010, not a princely sum), went to small claims court to make the other guys pay.

It seems to us that as a matter of equity, the plaintiff knew something like this would happen when he let the tree sprout years before, at a time when he owned the parcel on which the tree was growing. But equity appeared not to have any place in the courtroom that day.

But back to my basic point: the Hawaii Rule did not originate in Hawaii at all. What we thought we knew about that Rule turns out to be wrong. What next? Is the Massachusetts Rule equally mislabeled? Tune in tomorrow…

Scheckel v. NLI, Inc., 953 N.E.2d 133 (Ind.App. 2011). Steve Scheckel owned a piece of property separated by a chain-link fence from a plot belonging to NLI, Inc. Steve has a walkway paralleling the fence that runs about five feet from the boundary line. Steve had previously owned both his land and the NLI property, and – when he had – a tree grew on the NLI property near the fence. After he sold the land to NLI, the tree continued to grow, as trees are wont to do, until it grew into the fence and its roots grew under the walkway, leaving the gate in the fence unusable and the walkway badly cracked and buckled. Steve spent $2,500 fixing the mess.

Steve complained to NLI about the damage, but the corporation took no action. He then sued NLI for negligence and nuisance in small claims court. The court found for NLI on the grounds that while the size and placement of the tree damaged the fence and walkway, a landowner is not liable for harm caused beyond property boundaries by a natural condition of the land.

Steve appealed.

Held: The Court of Appeals reversed, and ordered that the trial court find NLI liable.

Steve contended that the trial court erred in applying the “natural condition” rule. The natural condition rule, as set out in which provides that a landowner was not liable for harms caused to others outside of his land caused by a natural condition of the land, arose “at a time when land was largely unsettled and the burden imposed on a landowner to inspect it for safety was held to exceed the societal benefit of preventing possible harm to passersby.”

Over the years, the rule has been subject to exceptions when landowners had actual knowledge of a dangerous natural condition, regardless of location, and – in an urban area – when he or she fails to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from the condition of the trees on the land near the highway. The rationale for imposing such a duty on urban landowners is that the risk of harm to highway users is greater and the burden of inspection on landowners is lighter in such populated areas.

Most recently, the Indiana Supreme Court observed that the natural condition rule, as stated in the Restatement of Torts § 363(2), has little or no utility in an urban setting. A landowner in an urban or residential area “has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring land owners, arising from the condition of trees on his or her property.”

Here, the Court of Appeals said that

[s]trictly applying the Restatement rule in these settings would leave landowners powerless in the face of a neighbor who refuses to remove or secure an obviously decayed and dangerous tree simply because it is a natural condition of the land. As a result, Indiana, along with several of our sister states, has retreated from strictly applying the Restatement rule in urban or residential settings where the landowners have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.

Here, the small claims court held that the condition of NLI’s tree did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring landowners, but rather the placement and size of the tree that caused the damage. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, seeing “no meaningful difference between the two situations. Indeed, it may be difficult to determine whether a tree is decayed to such an extent that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm to an adjoining property owner, but a tree upon one’s property that is growing into a structure on an adjoining property is readily observable.”

The Court applied a three-part duty analysis it adopted from an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, concluding that a landowner in a residential or urban community owes a duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to adjoining property owners or their property resulting from trees growing upon the landowner’s property. Those three factors – relationship, foreseeability and public policy – all support its conclusion that NLI owed Steve a duty:

The relationship is significant in that it is between the owners of adjoining property, and will often be that of next door neighbors. There is a high degree of foreseeability of harm where one’s tree is growing into a structure on an adjoining property. Finally, the landowner is best situated to prevent or minimize the harm by trimming the tree upon the landowner’s property. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in applying the natural condition rule to bar Scheckel’s negligence claim.

The Court also said the natural condition rule did not bar Steve’s private nuisance claim, either. A nuisance is defined as whatever is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses, or an obstruction of the free use of property, such that it essentially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. Ind.Code § 32-30-6-6. A public nuisance affects an entire neighborhood or community, while a private nuisance affects only one individual or a determinate number of people, arising when it has been demonstrated that one party has used his property to the detriment of the use and enjoyment of another’s property.

Nuisance actions may either be nuisances per se (at law) or nuisances per accidens (in fact). A nuisance per se occurs when the use itself is unlawful. A nuisance per accidens, a nuisance-in-fact, is not a nuisance in itself but becomes one by the manner in which it operates. In determining whether a private nuisance per accidens is actionable, the inquiry is whether the alleged nuisance produces such a condition that, in the judgment of reasonable persons, is “naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibility, tastes, and habits.”

Ever since 1894, the Court said, Indiana has recognized the right of landowners to recover damages to their property caused by trees growing on an adjoining property as a private nuisance. In the 1894 Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas City Railroad Co. v. Loop decision, the Indiana Supreme Court held that in the event of trees growing so close to the boundary line between two properties that their branches encroach on the adjoining premises, the adjoining landowner may have an action for damages in nuisance if injury were shown.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by applying the Restatement’s natural condition rule to Steve’s cause of action.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, May 21, 2024

Posted on May 21, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

SHORT AND SWEET

There have been more than a few recurring themes in our posts over the past decade-plus. Some of the most repeated are (1) hire a lawyer when you should have one, such as anytime you feel the need to sue someone; (2) courts follow prior decisions – called stare decisis – in order to bring certainty to the law; and (3) the Massachusetts Rule has traditionally been the law of the land, and while that has been changing, it is still the “go to” rule in most places.

Alas, Virginia Scott is not one of our regular readers. Had she been back in 2010 (and yes, we were around then, when people were still surfing the Web with their Packard Bell 286s sporting 56K modems), she would have consulted a lawyer about the mess that trees belonging to her neighbor, Julie, were making in her yard. She would have told the lawyer that she wanted damages for the dropped leaves and twigs, and she wanted to be compensated for what she paid tree trimmers to cut the offending branches and roots back to her property line.

The lawyer would have said, “Nothing doing,” or words to that effect, which would have saved Virginia the cost and aggravation of trying a do-it-yourself lawsuit against Julie. As well as having her hat handed to her by the trial court and the court of appeals.

“But,” Virginia wailed, “the law is stupid. It should be changed.” Notably, that argument has worked some places – Virginia, Hawaii, North Dakota – but Virginia had no idea how to press for modification of the rule, and the Court was unimpressed.

At least the Court of Appeals kept it short and sweet. As we will be…

Scott v. McCarty, 41 So.3d 989 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2010). Virginia Scott owned property next to Julie McCarty’s place. Dr. Julie had some pretty lush trees – this being Florida, plants like to grow there – and eventually some of the branches were overhanging Virginia’s place, and the roots were intruding underground.

Virginia sued the Doc for the damages Julie’s trees caused her property and for the cost of trimming the branches back to the property line and digging up the intruding roots. Apparently, having spent so much on damage repair and tree trimming, Virginia decided to save money on a lawyer and represented herself.

The trial court dismissed her complaint forthwith, citing the Florida common law rule that “a possessor of land is not liable to persons outside the land for a nuisance resulting from trees and natural vegetation growing on the land. The adjoining property owner to such a nuisance, however, is privileged to trim back, at the adjoining owner’s own expense, any encroaching tree roots or branches and other vegetation which has grown onto his property.”

This rule not seeming right to Virginia, she appealed.

Held: Virginia’s case was properly dismissed. The Court of Appeals said that the reason for Florida’s common-law rule “was that it was wiser to leave the individual to protect himself than to subject the other to the annoyance of actions at law which would likely be innumerable.”

On appeal, Virginia acknowledged that the common-law rule, first adopted in the 1987 Florida appellate case Gallo v. Heller, was the prevailing law, but she asked the Court to “take a different course.” The Court refused to do so, saying that “the Gallo view is the predominant view in the country… [and] departing from the precedent would invite further litigation between neighbors on this issue, which as a public policy matter should be avoided.”

– Thomas L. Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Posted on May 14, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

A PRESCRIPTION FOR TROUBLE

We all know about adverse possession, that peculiar legal doctrine that holds in essence that if you’re brazen enough to trespass on someone else’s land continuously for a period prescribed by statute, the property becomes yours. In most places, such as Pennsylvania, the period is 21 years long. So for 20 years, 11 months and 31 days, you’re a squatter. The next day, you’re landed gentry.

It seemed to me like judicially-sanctioned theft when I learned about adverse possession in law school (so long ago that over twice the statutory period has passed since I walked those hallowed halls). The theory, my property professor droned, was that public policy favored productive use of the land, and taking over a piece of land from an owner careless enough to let you take it over put it to more productive use,\ and thus should reward the taker. So if I like my piece of country property as a preserve for the birdies and little critters, and you want to bulldoze it for a new Starbucks, you win. The whole notion seems as cockeyed to me now as it did when I was a well-scrubbed and wide-eyed first-year law student back in the halcyon days of the 1970s.

To claim adverse possession, you have to show that your occupation of the land was open, notorious, hostile and adverse to the interest of the owner a continuous period of whatever the statute prescribes, say 21 years as an example. Some might say that if you built your Starbucks on my forest plot, and I did nothing about it for that long, I deserve to lose my land. To which I might reply that the law does not seem to offer much protection to someone when his or her property can be lost to another person simply because the thief gets away with it for long enough.

But if I thought adverse possession was screwy, I was hardly prepared for its little brother, a prescriptive easement. Adverse possession is occupation of the land. A prescriptive easement is a mere use of someone else’s land without exclusive occupation. My kids cut through the neighbor’s side yard for years as a shortcut to the church. I still do it when I’m running late. If now, 28 years after the neighbor’s house was built, he put up a fence to stop us, should we be able to claim a right to have the fence removed so that we can continue to save five minutes getting to worship? What we would have, we could argue, was a prescriptive easement.

I once had a client who was about to build a garage on a piece of his land. The power company sued, because lines that went behind his property for years had been slightly rerouted so that they crossed a corner of his place. The electric company said it had moved the lines a convenient 23 years before, and now it had a prescriptive easement, which limited my client’s use of a quarter of his property to a vegetable garden.

We stared down Reddy Kilowatt in that case, because we located an aerial photo of the town from 20 years before that showed the electric company was bluffing, and the lines had not been moved as of that date. My client sold the electric company an easement over 50 feet of backyard for about $30,000. Happy ending.

As much as I dislike the whole notion of prescriptive easements, I admire creativity. I always thought of such easements as being created by the deliberate actions of humans. My kids cut across the neighbor’s lawn. The power company restrung its lines. But the plaintiffs in today’s case showed creativity I lack. Here, they claim a prescriptive easement not because of what they did, but because of what their tree did. Because the limbs and roots of a tree they owned grew into a neighboring property and remained there for more than 21 years, they argued, they had thus obtained a prescriptive easement that would prevent the neighbor from doing anything to the tree.

It’s as if the Massachusetts Rule had an expiration date.

At first blush, it seems to ring all the prescriptive easement bells and seemed pretty doggone clever. But after thinking about the whole notion for long enough, the appeals court wisely said it simply did not make sense.

Koresko v. Farley, 844 A.2d 607 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004). The Koreskos bought property with a line of trees on one boundary, all of which had been there for more than 21 years. The trees hang over the boundary with the neighboring property containing a house, owned by M.J. Farley Development Co. Inc. Farley had submitted a subdivision plan seeking to divide the property into two plots and build a second residence on the newly formed plot.

The subdivision plan proposed to place a water line and driveway near the boundary trees. Upon learning of the proposal, the Koreskos sued in equity seeking injunctive relief and, of course, money damages. In their complaint, the Koreskos claimed the driveway and trench would damage the root systems of the boundary trees. Among their claims, the Koreskos alleged unreasonable interference with their prescriptive easement. They claimed that because their trees’ roots and branches encroached on the subdivided property for over 21 years, a prescriptive easement existed for the tree roots and branches, and that development of the property would unreasonably interfere with that easement; and

After the trial court held that “Pennsylvania does not and will not recognize an easement for tree roots or overhanging branches,” the Koreskos appealed.

Held: Pennsylvania will not recognize a prescriptive easement created by the growth of a tree.

A prescriptive easement is a right to use another’s property that is not inconsistent with the owner’s rights and which is acquired by a use that is open, notorious, and uninterrupted for a period of 21 years. A prescriptive easement, once acquired, may not be restricted unreasonably by the possessor of the land subject to the easement.

The law holds that overhanging tree branches are a trespass. In Pennsylvania, a landowner has the right either to compel the removal of overhanging branches or to engage in self-help. However, the Restatement notes that a continuing trespass is not a trespass at all if the actor causing the trespass has obtained an easement by adverse possession, and ponders openly whether the continued presence of encroaching tree branches, held openly, notoriously, hostilely, and continually for 21 years would create a prescriptive easement in the airspace which they hang.

If this were the case, the Court said – noting it could find no Pennsylvania law which would indicate that a prescriptive easement was not available in this situation – a landowner who suffers actual harm for the first time during the tree owner’s 22nd year of hostile ownership would be precluded from seeking any remedy whatsoever, even self-help. However, the Court said, if an action is available without a showing of damage – and a trespass action assumes damages, so it can be brought whether the trespasser has actually injured the victim’s property or not – the landowner has no reason to complain if a neighbor’s tree causes damage after the prescriptive period has run because he or she could have sued at any time during the 21-year period.

The Court held the Koreskos failed to state a claim for prescriptive easement as a matter of law. No Pennsylvania case has held such easements are cognizable, the Court said, and other jurisdictions have reasoned that such should not be recognized. Finally, the potential of widespread uncertainty occasioned by such easements convinced the Court that they should not be recognized as a matter of public policy.

The Restatement holds that to be adverse, a use must be open and notorious, for the protection of those against whom it is claimed to be adverse. It enables them to protect themselves against the effect of the use by preventing its continuance. This requirement may be satisfied by a showing that either the landowner against whom the use is claimed has actual knowledge of the use or has had a reasonable opportunity to learn of its existence.

Encroaching tree parts, the Court held, by themselves do not establish “open and notorious” use of the land. Neither roots below the ground nor branches above the ground fairly notify an owner of a neighbor’s claim for use at the surface. In the absence of additional circumstances, roots and branches alone do not alert an owner that his or her exclusive dominion of the ground is challenged. This is no different from prior legal decisions that already held that the known presence of windows near a lot line does not create a prescriptive easement for light and air.

In a Kansas decision, an appeals court in the Sunflower State held that an easement by prescription cannot be acquired by overhanging tree branches, said:

The result reached here will be distasteful to all who treasure trees. The philosophy of the law is simply that whenever neighbors cannot agree, the law will protect each owner’s rights insofar as that is possible. Any other result would cause landowners to seek self-help or to litigate each time a piece of vegetation starts to overhang their property for fear of losing the use or partial use of their property as the vegetation grows.

The Koresko Court said, “We agree with this reasoning and holding… and we expressly adopt it in Pennsylvania.”

Finally, the Court considered the consequences of the holding urged by Koreskos. Trees growing over property boundaries and streets, around utility lines, and under sidewalks are common in Pennsylvania. “A decision suggesting that the prolonged presence of these tree parts assures their unreduced continuation could cause uncertainty,” the Court held. “Both the extent of the prescriptive easement and its effect on public and private use are problematic. As a matter of sound public policy, we decline to recognize a new estate which offers uncertainty and invites clarification through litigation.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Thursday, May 9, 2024

Posted on May 9, 2024 by TLRoot tagged.

INJUNCTION JUNCTION

To a nonlawyer, nothing sounds as enticing as running to a judge who will immediately express shock and dismay at a plaintiff’s shoddy treatment by issuing a thundering injunction to stop the defendants in their tracks.

OK, we’re wrong. To a nonlawyer, a lot of things sound more enticing… a cold beer after a long, hot day of work, the only winning ticket in a $140 million Powerball drawing, watching your neighbor wrap his new Porsche – a car you lust after but could never afford – around a utility pole.

But when a person feels wronged, the urge to have his or her lawyer blast the defendants with both barrels right out of the gate is almost irresistible. So let’s get a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction, followed by a first-class trial and a hanging.

But getting a preliminary injunction is not all that easy a thing. First, you have to show that without it, you will be irreparably harmed. That’s not easy, because almost any harm can be repaired, usually by a liberal application of money. Then, you have to show that you’re “likely to succeed on the merits,” a fancy term for proving that you’re going to win when you go to trial. Inasmuch as a trial is when you put on all of your evidence, winning a preliminary injunction means you have to try the case twice, and at the injunction stage, you have not had the benefit of perusing your opponent’s files and harassing him or her in a deposition.

Finally, you have to show that equity is on your side. That’s a fairly squishy concept, but generally, it measures how big a pain it’s going to be for the other party if the injunction is granted. If the injunction is, for example, do not cut down my trees in your easement before we work out whether you have the right to do so, that’s not tough. The cost to the other guy of not cutting them down is not that great, and the cost to you if he does certainly is great, probably irreparable harm.

On the other hand, if – like plaintiff John Haverland in today’s case – you want a mandatory injunction, one which does not prevent something from happening but instead orders that the other guy do something, that’s a much taller order.

Two things to remember: First, getting a preliminary injunction does not mean that you’re going to win the case. We have no idea how John Haverland made out after the trial, or even if there was a trial. Second, because this is New York State, where everything is upside down, the “Supreme Court” is a trial court. New York’s highest court is the New York Court of Appeals.

Go figure.

Haverland v. Lawrence, 800 N.Y.S.2d 347 (Supreme Ct. Suffolk Co., Dec. 1, 2004): Mike Haverland sued his neighbor, Guy Lawrence, and his landscaper. The suit was brought because Guy had his landscaper plant an 80-foot line of 13’ tall pine trees along the boundary between the two homes. Mike said the trees were so close to the boundary line that, although their trunks did not cross the line, the root balls (which of course were well buried) did.

Mike complained that, besides the root balls, the trees had been staked, and some of the stakes were in his yard. He said Guy’s contractor crossed onto his land while planting the trees and knocked down five of his oak trees and construction stakes marking the site of his new house. Finally, he argued that the pine trees changed the grade slightly, so that water accumulates and floods in a 22-foot strip of his property after a hard rain. This, Mike said, would result in a foot of standing water, making this part of his land unusable.

Mike’s real complaint was that this flooding and the fast-growing roots of the trees would undermine the integrity of the foundation of his house, which had not yet been built. He asked for a preliminary injunction directing that Guy Lawrence and East Hampton Bayberry, Inc., his contractor, remove the pine trees, rootballs and stakes from his land, and restore the previous natural grade and surface water flow on Mike’s property.

Mike’s surveyor, David L. Saskas, said he had placed surveyor stakes on Mike’s property to enable Mike’s general contractor to mark the location of the foundation of Mike’s new house. In the course of this survey, he determined that ten large evergreen trees had been planted very near the boundary line with Mike’s property. The trunks of five of these trees were within six inches of the line. and the holes and root balls for these trees extended up to 2½ feet onto Mike’s land. Only two of these ten trees were planted entirely on Guy’s property. The metal stakes and guy wires for the trees extended as much as four feet into Mike’s property. Finally, David said, the planting of the new trees created a small berm that raised the grade of the land extending into Mike’s yard. David offered his opinion that the change of grade altered the run-off pattern of surface water and “contributed” to the flooding on Mike’s land.

Mike’s first cause of action in the complaint was for trespass and the second alleged commission of a nuisance based on a violation of the East Hampton Town Code Section 255-10-50. Mike also wanted a permanent injunction forcing Guy to restore the old grade so as to return the runoff to its prior state, and to remove all trees, stakes and rootballs that were encroaching on his land.

Guy’s contractor argued there was no trespass because Mike’s own surveys showed that all of the tree trunks were on Guy’s land. The contractor said it was conjectural to believe that the tree roots would someday undermine the foundation of Mike’s house. The contractor said any flooding that might occur did not constitute irreparable injury. Instead, the condition was minor and easily remedied.

Guy agreed that the tree trunks did not encroach, and argued Mike was just guessing as to the size of the buried rootballs. He said Mike’s claims of flooding were exaggerated, and Mike had no proof that the newly planted trees were responsible for it. He also argued that Mike failed to show how any of the East Hampton Town Code had been violated and that equity is not balanced in Mike’s favor “since removal of the trees and re-grading of the land is a drastic remedy and there are other and less drastic remedies available.” Guy alleged that Mike never said anything about the grade or flooding, but only brought it up after he hired an attorney.

Mike responded that this is a case where the planting of the trees, as opposed to their natural growth, caused the encroachment. Self-help is not an appropriate remedy, Mike argued, because trimming the encroaching part of the trees would kill them. He said it was hardly unfair to make Guy and his contractor “pay for what they would have had to pay originally but for their illegal trespass.”

Held: The Court denied Mike his preliminary injunction.

For a preliminary injunction, Mike had to show (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury unless the preliminary injunction was granted; and (3) that a balancing of equities favors Mike’s position.” Preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy that will not be granted unless a clear right to the injunction is established under the law and the undisputed facts. The burden to show that undisputed right rests upon the movant.

The Court held that Mike’s allegation that Guy’s contractor drove across his yard, tore out construction stakes and killed five oaks was enough to show he was likely to prevail on a trespass action. Any unauthorized entry upon the land of another constitutes trespass. The Court said that Mike, to the extent he has alleged (and Guy admitted he had told the contractor to drive over Mike’s land) that the contractor drove over Mike’s land and destroyed property, “has established the likelihood of success on the merits. However, as to the remainder of the complaint, defendants’ submissions in opposition to the application raise numerous and significant triable issues of fact which preclude such a finding.”

Mike’s real problem, the Court ruled, was that he had not shown that he would suffer an irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction was not granted. Mike’s claim that the newly-planted trees have fast growing roots that will undermine the foundation, “lacks specific evidentiary support and is merely speculative and conclusory.” His claim that the foundation will suffer irreparable damage should the flooding continue is contradicted by his admission that the integrity of that foundation will be gradually undermined. The fact that Mike claimed he was temporarily deprived of the use of part of his property because of flooding after heavy rain was not an irreparable injury. Anyway, the Court said, “there is also a sharp factual dispute with regard to the cause of the flooding as well as the frequency and extent of the flooding.”

Finally, the Court held, Mike did not show that equity was on his side. First, the Court said, Mike was seeking a preliminary injunction directing not that Guy abstain from some conduct, but rather that he and his contractor actively do something: remove planted trees and re-grade Mike’s property to restore the previous pattern of surface water runoff. As a general rule, the Court observed, “mandatory injunctions are not favored and will be granted in only the most extraordinary circumstances.” This is especially so where, as here, Mike sought to get the same injunctive relief he sought in the final, permanent injunction. In such a case, “a preliminary injunction will not be granted unless the plaintiff demonstrates, upon clear and undisputed facts, that such relief is imperative and because without it, a trial would be futile.”

The Court weighed the drastic nature of the relief sought against Mike’s conjecture that the tree roots might eventually reach his foundation, as well as the “sharply disputed claim” that Guys’ planting of the trees and re-grading of his property caused extensive flooding, is not enough to prove the existence of the “extraordinary circumstances which would tip the balance of equity in his favor.”

– Tom Root