Case of the Day – Monday, August 4, 2025

Posted on August 4, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

LITIGATION IS A SINGLE-ELIMINATION PLAYOFF

We’re approaching that magical time when football and baseball seasons overlap. Two games, so different. Football is time management, while a baseball contest can continue while glaciers whiz by. And the playoffs – in baseball, a team can have an off night or two, but still take the Series. Football is “one and done.”

Maybe we’re simple people, but we like the football playoffs, where a single game determines who goes on and who goes home. Single elimination. Boom, and it’s over… just like that.

That’s how the judicial system works. If you’re sued and win, the loser does not get another bite of the apple. No do-overs. No mulligans. Of course, if you’re sued and lose, the same is true.

Mary Shiel and her neighbors, Keli Jo and John Rowell, enjoyed what the court called “an uncomplicated and pleasant relationship; throughout the years, there would be soirees, weddings, and the usual and customary events that form the bonds of comity in the community.”

All was not placid, however. There was a tree, you see…

Mary and the Rowells shared a property line on which a tree grew. And grew and grew. The tree seemed to favor Mary, because it did most of its growing in her direction. The limbs bothered Mary, and as the tree grew, so did her aggravation. The friendship frayed, and the police were called more than once. Finally, the Rowells had to get protective orders from their now-manic neighbor.

Any reader of this column knows the Massachusetts Rule. Like Dorothy, Mary had her own ruby slippers, or maybe a ruby-encrusted chainsaw. She had the power to remove those offending branches whenever she wanted. Except Mary didn’t want to. She wanted the Rowells to trim it for her.

Finally, she sued in Small Claims Court. Uncharacteristically for Small Claims Court, the magistrate conducted a full hearing, where Mary was remonstrated repeatedly not only by the magistrate but by her own lawyer. After testimony that consumed 68 pages of transcript, the Small Claims Court unsurprisingly found for the Rowells, holding that Massachusetts follows the Massachusetts Rule. If Mary didn’t like the branches, she could remove them herself.

Unsatisfied with the result, Mary hired another attorney and had him file a complaint in the Quincy District Court, alleging nuisance and trespass. That’s when Mary found out she was playing football, not baseball.

Shiel v. Rowell, 2017 Mass.App.Div. LEXIS 30 (Ct.App. Massachusetts, August 9, 2017). It is well established in Massachusetts that an individual whose property is damaged by an overhanging tree has no cause of action against a landowner of the property upon which the tree lies. The Massachusetts Rule empowers the aggrieved neighbor to engage in self-help and lop off the trespassing boughs.

Mary sued the Rowells in Small Claims Court. That Court ruled that the Rowells were not responsible for the branches overhanging Mary’s place. Mary did not much like the result, so she hired a new lawyer and sued the Rowells in Quincy District Court, alleging the same causes of action litigated in the small claims hearing.

The Rowells filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming both res judicata – a legal doctrine that literally means “the thing has been adjudicated” – and that the Massachusetts Rule required dismissal. The District Court judge ruled that the Massachusetts Rule claim was directly on point, so it was not necessary to reach the res judicata question. The judge dismissed Mary’s lawsuit.

Mary appealed.

Held: Mary had no right to force the Rowells to trim the tree.

The appellate court made short work of Mary’s appeal, observing that she did not “ascribe fault to the trial court’s decision other than that the judge should have disregarded the settled law and applied a different standard.” Mary wanted the court to adopt the Hawaii Rule, which the court called “a deciduously dissimilar state, which rejected the Massachusetts Rule for one providing a homeowner with a cause of action against a neighbor’s tree encroachment. We decline to fell judicial precedent.”

Litigation is football. When the trial is over, it is over. Single elimination. Sudden death. Mary thought she was in the baseball postseason and had multiple games. She only needed one win, and in the end, reverted to football with a “Hail Mary,” asking a court in the home of the Massachusetts Rule to go Hawaiian.

Your season’s over, Mary. Now go trim those branches.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, August 1, 2025

Posted on August 1, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

WHEN GOOD TREES GO BAD

The tree was just doing what trees do.

Your tree is growing, man. Do something!

That was Ed Chandler’s lament to his neighbors, the Larsons. The nerve of those Larson people, owning a tree growing near the boundary with Ed’s place. What’s worse, they had the unmitigated gall to permit the tree to drop its leaves on Ed’s property, and to let the tree’s roots grow up to his garage foundation. Ed complained mightily, but to no avail.

Ed could have stood for merely mitigated gall, but not this unmitigated kind. Oh, the humanity! So, this being America in general and Illinois in particular, Ed sued. He claimed that “as a consequence of the growth of that tree, plaintiff’s garage had been severely and greatly damaged from the roots of the tree so that ‘the foundation has been broken, walls damaged and the roof coming apart’.”

The trial judge, being a flinty, self-reliant sort, threw out the suit, holding that the tree was doing what trees do – growing – and the Larsons weren’t responsible for that. The Court of Appeals disagreed, citing Professor William L. Prosser’s gold-standard treatise on tort law:

“[I]t is scarcely suited to cities, to say that a landowner may escape all liability for serious damage to his neighbors, merely by allowing nature to take its course. A different rule accordingly has been developing as to urban centers. * * * [W]hen the tree is in an urban area, * * * the landowner now has a duty of reasonable care, including inspection to make sure that the tree is safe. Recent decisions have extended the right to reasonable protection from travelers on the street to adjoining landowners as well.”

Like it or not, the Massachusetts Rule increasingly seems to be a relic of a bygone era. The Illinois courts still seem to discount normal tree problems – falling leaves, sap, and the like – but when genuine harm (we call it “sensible harm”) results to an adjoining landowner from a tree’s natural development, the tree’s owner may be liable for repairs and removal of the tree.

Chandler v. Larson, 148 Ill.App.3d 1032, 500 N.E.2d 584 (Ct. App. Ill. 1986). Chandler complained that his next-door neighbor, Larson, had a tree that for some time had been growing over and onto Chandler’s property, with the roots growing under his garage and the leaves growing above his property. As a result of the tree’s growth, Chandler’s garage foundation has been broken, with the walls damaged and the roof coming apart. Chandler asked the Larsons to cut down their tree, but they refused. Chandler asked for an injunction ordering that the tree be destroyed. The trial court refused.

Held: The appeals court ruled that an urban property owner owed his adjoining landowner the duty of reasonable care, which necessarily would include taking reasonable steps to prevent damage to the adjoining landowner’s garage caused by roots of the urban property owner’s trees. A complaint that alleged that the adjoining landowner had placed the urban property owner on notice that the roots from his trees were causing considerable damage to the adjoining landowner’s garage and alleged that although the urban property owner had received the notice, he refused to uproot the tree or to use other methods which would prevent further harm, stated a good cause of action for negligence.

The ruling is substantially at odds with the traditional Massachusetts Rule that an owner of land is entitled to grow trees on any or all of his land and that their natural growth reasonably will result in the extension of roots and branches onto adjoining property, and the adjoining landowner’s only remedy is to trim back the roots and branches. The appeals court in this case held urban landowner Larson to a higher “city dweller” standard. This standard is generally known as the Hawaii Rule, which imposes liability upon the adjoining landowner if the trees, plants, roots, or vines cause harm in ways other than by casting shade or dropping leaves, flowers, or fruit.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Monday, July 7, 2025

Posted on July 7, 2025 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 southern 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 the fact 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. Some of the trees, Dave complained, were rotten. He whined that the trees cast shadows over his property and cause mold growth on his roof, as well as damaged his driveway and foundation.

Dave groused that he had hired 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 recently consigned to the ash heap 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 have 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 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 26, 2025

Posted on June 26, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

THE COURT CHANNELS SHAKESPEARE

We're not Pucking around ... a landowner's duty to the neighbors may be higher than you think ...

We’re not Pucking around … a landowner’s duty to the neighbors may be greater than you think …

Midsummer’s Night fell last weekend, making me feel a little Puckish. So I thought we’d examine two neighbors, neither of whom reacted thoughtfully to a dangerous tree. “Oh, what fools these mortals be!” Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene 2.

Traditionally, the Massachusetts Rule – which could be summarized as “I don’t owe you nuthin’ – held that a landowner had no liability to his neighbor for harm done by overhanging branches and encroaching root systems. If the neighbor didn’t like the mess, he or she could trim away the offending branches or roots up to the property line. The courts simply didn’t want to hear about it.

However, courts had traditionally held an urban landowner to a higher standard of care when the people being protected were passing motorists on a public highway. In those cases, an urban landowner was obligated to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from the condition of trees on the land near the highway.

In today’s case, Lois Lockhart had a decaying tree on her property. Neighbor Carl Mahurin complained about it, primarily because one of the branches was overhanging his property. But Lois did nothing. Neither did Carl – unless belly-aching counts as putting forth an effort.

Finally, the branch broke off and hit Carl, who was standing beneath it. You knew that had to happen, or else why would we be telling you this story? Being injured – and a little piqued that Lois had ignored his entreaties for so long – Carl sued. (You knew that would happen, too.)

Lois tried to get the case thrown out of trial court. She pointed out that Carl had nuthin’ coming from her. The traditional rule – read “Massachusetts Rule” here – dictated that she had no duty to protect Carl from the natural condition of her tree.

But as the great bard once wrote, “I do perceive here a divided duty.” Othello, Act I, Scene 3. And so did the trial court. It was troubled that Lockhart’s duty to strangers passing by in their Hudsons and Desotos was greater than to her neighbor. That seems divided, and irrationally so.

Lois said, “Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty, But seeming so, for my peculiar end.” Othello, Act I, Scene 1. The trial court said that might be so, but it nevertheless sent the case to the Court of Appeals for the appellate court’s opinion as to her duty.

William Shakespeare - he foresaw the problems with the traditional liability rule hundreds of years ago.

William Shakespeare foresaw the problems with the traditional liability rule urged by Ms. Lockhart hundreds of years ago. “Wondrous strange!” indeed.

The appellate panel said, “O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!” Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5. It could see no reason for the disparate treatment, either. Certainly, just as Lockhart owed a duty to Mordred and Mildred Motorist, she must owe the same duty to her neighbor, Carl. However, the Court of Appeals did allow that Mr. Mahurin could have entered Ms. Lockhart’s place and cut the tree down itself. So he might be contributorily negligent. Likewise, could he have been a knucklehead for standing under a tree he had complained was dangerous?

To Lockhart, the Court said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Lois, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5. Such as… a single duty owed by a landowner to both travelers passing on the road and her next-door neighbor. It sent the case back to trial.

Mahurin v. Lockhart, 71 Ill.App.3d 691, 390 N.E.2d 523 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1979). Plaintiff Carl Mahurin brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries he suffered when a dead branch extending over his property fell from a tree belonging to defendant Lois Lockhart, an adjoining landowner, and struck him. In his complaint, Mahurin alleged that Lockhart failed to prune the tree or take other necessary precautions after he warned her of the condition of the tree and the dangers it posed.

Lockhart moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that a landowner is not liable for physical harm to others outside of her land caused by a natural condition. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, certified that the question of law raised in Lockhart’s motion presented substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

Held: The Court held that a landowner in a residential or urban area has a duty to others outside of his land to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from defective or unsound trees on the premises, including trees of purely natural origin.

The narrow issue before the court was to determine the extent, if any, of the duty that a landowner in a residential area owes to persons outside of his premises to remedy some defective or unsound condition of a tree upon his land when the tree and its condition were of a purely natural origin. Mahurin urged the Court to adopt the traditional rule set forth in section 363 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This section provided that neither a possessor of land, nor a vendor, lessor, or other transferor, is liable for physical harm caused to others outside of the land by a natural condition of the land. However, if the landowner was in an urban area, he was subject to liability to persons using a public highway for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from the condition of trees on the land near the highway.”

The traditional rule applied even though the landowner is aware of the dangerous natural condition and the expense necessary to remedy the condition is slight.

The Court noted that the traditional rule of non-liability developed at a time when land was mostly unsettled and uncultivated. The landowner – unable to keep a daily account of and remedy all of the dangerous conditions arising out of purely natural causes – was therefore shielded from liability out of necessity.

But, the Court of Appeals asked, if Carl knew the tree was dangerous, why was he standing under it? Duh, Carl …

The Court disagreed that the duty an urban landowner owed to a neighbor should be less than that owed to people passing in cars and trucks. It thus ruled that a landowner in a residential or urban area has a duty to others outside of his land to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from defective or unsound trees on the premises, including trees of purely natural origin.”

Therefore, Lockhart’s duty to Mahurin should “be defined using the ordinary rules of negligence. It is, therefore, appropriate for the trier of fact to consider… such factors as the nature of the locality, the seriousness of the danger, and the ease with which it may be prevented” in resolving the issue of liability.

The Court noted Lockhart’s argument that Mahurin was contributorily negligent because he stood under a tree that he, by his own admission, knew was dying and dangerous. The Court noted that the Restatement provided that a landowner is privileged to enter upon a neighbor’s land to abate a condition thereon which constitutes a private nuisance. “While this privilege alone does not establish the contributory negligence of plaintiff, it could be considered by the jury in resolving this issue.”

The Court remanded the case for trial, using the standards it had adopted.

Tom Root

Case of the Day – Wednesday, June 11, 2025

Posted on June 11, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

IT’S YOUR PLACE – TAKE CARE OF IT

It’s fun these days to deride the Massachusetts Rule as a relic of a bygone era, when manly men hewed the logs for their cabins, wielded their own axes for firewood, and posted their own selfies as drove their oxen teams in the fields… back in that rustic pre-war era (before the first Persian Gulf war) when the web was something you walked into down in the basement and “text” was not a verb.

The Massachusetts Rule, of course, embodies the libertarian view that each landowner is both entitled to and limited by the doctrine of “self-help.” The Rule has two prongs. The first is universally accepted: a landowner has a right to cut encroaching branches, vines, and roots back to the property line, provided he or she does not enter the adjoining landowner’s property to chop down a tree or cut back growth without the neighbor’s consent.

The second prong of the Massachusetts Rule is less widely acknowledged. Rather, it has fallen out of favor to a great extent over the past 30 years.

But when Jon Melnick ran into problems, the second prong was still the law of the land. Back in the late 1970s, Jon bought a decrepit Baltimore warehouse next to the railroad tracks, which he then repaired for commercial use. After he fixed the place up, he discovered that a fair amount of the reason the property had become run down to begin with was that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (which after several mergers, consolidations and rebrandings, had become a component of CSX Transportation, a subsidiary of CSX Corporation) did little to maintain the trees alongside its railroad right of way. As a result, branches were overhanging the warehouse, dropping twigs and leaves and vines and other plant life onto the roof.

Jon was whining to the railroad all the livelong day, but no one paid any heed to his lament. So he sued, alleging trespass, negligence, and nuisance.

The modern-day B&O: as much a hometown hero to Baltimore as the Ravens and Orioles.

Don’t bet against the home team. The Baltimore & Ohio prevailed in Baltimore. The Maryland court followed the Massachusetts Rule to the letter. In a paean to an era of rugged individualism lost since in the past, the Court held that the privileges of real estate ownership are accompanied by certain obligations. One of those is “proper maintenance.” Indeed, the Court lectured that “to 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. We have gotten along very well in Maryland, for over 350 years, without authorizing legal actions of this type by neighbor against neighbor.”

Well, of course. We’ve always done it that way. For that matter, we got along just fine for 275 years without paved roads. Candles served us well in the evening, and those newfangled electric lights everyone uses now just encourage people to remain awake past their bedtimes.

The justification that ‘we’ve always done it that way’ is usually a poor reason to resist change. While it got CSX off the hook and picked Jon’s pocket to have his roof and gutters constantly cleaned, the Massachusetts Rule’s proscription on legal redress for encroachment was already on the exit ramp when this case was decided in 1988. The Hawaii Rule – which holds that when there is imminent danger of overhanging branches causing “sensible” harm to property other than plant life, the tree owner is liable for the cost of trimming the branches as well as for the damage caused – has gained traction in a number of states over the past 20 years. Tennessee, New Mexico, North Dakota, Arizona, and New York follow it. Several other states follow the rule with variations: in Oregon, the owner of the offending tree must somehow be at fault or the tree must be “ultrahazardous.” In Missouri, the Hawaii Rule is followed if the offending tree is diseased or damaged, but the Massachusetts Rule is followed if it’s healthy.

Until 2007, Virginia had an unworkable rule that in order for a neighbor to be liable for damage caused by his or her tree, it had to be “noxious,” that is, one generally seen to be a pest. It abandoned that approach in favor of holding that encroaching trees and plants are not nuisances merely because they cast shade, drop leaves, flowers, or fruit, or just because they happen to encroach upon adjoining property either above or below the ground. But encroaching trees and plants may be regarded as a nuisance when they cause actual harm or pose an imminent danger of actual harm to adjoining property. If so, the owner of the tree or plant may be held responsible for harm caused to adjoining property, and may also be required to cut back the encroaching branches or roots, assuming the encroaching vegetation constitutes a nuisance.

The Melnick court found it “undesirable to categorize living trees, plants, roots, or vines as a ‘nuisance’ to be abated, citing an Ohio case holding that “[t]o grow a tree is a natural act of the soil. It is not itself a dangerous instrumentality.” Were the issue to arise in Maryland courts now, 30 years later, we suspect the outcome would be much different.

Melnick v. CSX Corporation, 312 Md. 511, 540 A.2d 1133 (Ct.App.Md. 1988). Johnathan Melnick purchased a warehouse in Baltimore that shared a common boundary with a railroad right-of-way owned by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. He replaced the roof, which had been in poor condition.

Since the roof replacement, Melnick constantly experienced clogged drains, standing water, roof deterioration, and some water damage to stored merchandise. These problems result from leaves and limbs falling on his property from the railroad’s trees. Melnick tried to remedy the situation by cleaning the gutters on several occasions and cutting back the growth, but the problem continued. When his complaints to the railroad were ignored, he sued on theories of trespass, negligence, and nuisance.

The trial court granted judgment to the railroad, holding that Melnick was limited to a self-help remedy. Melnick appealed.

Held: Under the circumstances, Melnick had no cause of action against the railroad. The appellate court reasoned that the remedy of “self-help” was generally the most efficient way in which to prevent injury from occurring to property due to encroaching vegetation.

The Court followed the Massachusetts Rule, set out in Michalson v. Nutting. “We believe that it is undesirable to categorize living trees, plants, roots, or vines as a “nuisance” 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… ‘Indeed, such natural growth and shedding processes of trees are inherent… and to most people constitute a pleasurable reflection of seasonal changes’.”

The Court held that a landowner must assume responsibility for the care and preservation of his or her own property. “Along with the benefits derived from property ownership come certain obligations. Proper maintenance of one’s own property is one of these obligations.”

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Tuesday, June 10, 2025

Posted on June 10, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

SELF-HELP MEETS CATCH-22

Those of us old enough to remember the ‘60s – and if you were around then, you probably were in such a state that you don’t remember them – recall Joseph Heller’s book, Catch-22. The short rocket is this: the “Catch 22” is simply this – if one is crazy, one can be relieved from flying combat missions. But one has to apply for the discharge, and applying demonstrates that one is not crazy. As a result, one will not be discharged.

The Catch-22 typifies “bureaucratic operation and reasoning,” which brings us to today’s conundrum. An alert reader in Toad Lick, Arkansas, wrote to complain that a branch from his neighbor’s oak tree hangs over his property to a great extent, dropping leaves and acorns. He says it’s so big and long that it’s a hazard, and he fears that it will fall on his children. What, he wonders, can he do?

Oh, yawn, you say. Being a faithful reader of this blog, you immediately recognize that the solution to this is the Massachusetts Rule, which permits a homeowner to use “self-help,” trimming the branches back to his property line. Ah, but there’s a twist to this particular problem. If our afflicted homeowner trims to the property line, he will leave a six-foot or so stub of a branch because he cannot go onto the neighbor’s property to trim the branch all the way to the trunk. The city, he tells us, requires that the branch be trimmed all the way to the trunk, or it will fine him.

At this point, the notion of a lousy $25 fine leaves you still unimpressed, and you’re about to click off this blog for one of those Internet sites that no one admits to checking out, but we all do, anyway. Not so fast. It gets better. Our homeowner complains that the City’s fine for improper trimming is $400 per inch of diameter of the tree, and the diameter of the offending oak (at 4 feet above the ground) is something like 36 inches. That’s right, he’s looking at shelling out $15,000 in fines (plus tree trimming costs), all to cut down a single hazardous branch.

Or so our afflicted correspondent says. Frankly, we were perplexed by his report. If things were as our complainant said they were, one could not effectively exercise self-help without one’s neighbor’s cooperation. That seemed to eviscerate the Massachusetts Rule, taking the “self” right out of “self-help.” It’s the classic Catch 22 – you cannot exercise self-help without your neighbor’s cooperation, which, if you can get it, pretty much makes it anything but self-help.

Years of law practice have made us acutely aware of a sad fact of life: clients get it wrong. They get it wrong all the time. You could be cynical and say that clients lie, but we would never suspect that. Indeed, you don’t have to go that far. Whether they’re simply confused, perceive it incorrectly, or flat out fib, the result’s the same.

Here, the Toad Lick City Code tells a somewhat different story. The ordinance requires that any trimming in the city has to be done according to ANSI Standard A300, which sets out best practices for tree maintenance. If a trimmer adheres to the standard, what happens to the tree is not his or her fault. If the trimmer does not trim to the ANSI standard, and the tree later suffers “substantial destruction” – that is, it is killed or becomes a hazard tree – the trimmer is liable. So our homeowner’s trimming won’t lead to a fine unless the tree is “substantially destroyed.” And that will take a few years to determine.

Talking to the Toad Lick City Forester’s office, we found out a few other facts as well, details our correspondent homeowner overlooked telling us. It appears that our afflicted complainant may not be all that concerned with the fate of his children playing under the branch. Instead, he wants to build a swimming pool, and the branch is directly over the new installation. What’s worse, the branch spoils his view.

Whew! We haven’t had a problem like this since our last law school final exam. Where to start? First, our unhappy pool-building homeowner should hire an arborist. If the arborist agrees that the branch is a hazard, our man is on much more solid ground. The neighbor should be placed on notice of the hazard determination, and the neighbor’s insurance company should be told, too. We bet the insurance company will convince the recalcitrant neighbor to let our homeowner trim to A300 standards without a whimper of protest.

But what if the branch isn’t a hazard (as we’ve heard)? Our homeowner might still have an arborist trim it to the property line according to accepted industry standards (if such a thing is possible). If it is not, our homeowner may have to risk lopping the branch off at the property line, and hoping that the tree doesn’t die. If it does, the City is going to assert that it was the homeowner’s improper trimming that caused the hazard (or death).

We suspect our homeowner won’t find an arborist who will cut the branch other than at the trunk (which cannot be done without the neighbor’s OK). If the homeowner is going to go ahead with the pool, he may just have to cut the branch at the property boundary and hope for the best. If the tree withers and dies within a few years of the surgery, well, then, he has a problem.

That should not be surprising. Even without the city ordinance, the suggestion has often been made that Massachusetts self-help requires first that the overhanging branches be doing more than just causing shade or dropping leaves. In Herring v. Lisbon Partners, the court suggested that Massachusetts self-help was only available when the overhanging branches or intruding roots were doing more than your average tree: that is, they were a danger or a nuisance, breaking up pavement or damaging roofs. It is possible that courts may rule that self-help isn’t available merely to improve the view (although such a ruling hasn’t been made anywhere yet).

Thus, it could be that our homeowner really isn’t entitled to do much of anything if he cannot get an arborist to certify that the branch is doing more mischief than your average branch. Endangering kids is one thing: spoiling a view is something else. If the branch is a hazard, the homeowner might have a defense to trimming it to the property line, even if the tree dies – the defense of necessity.

Our complaining homeowner told us that he doesn’t want to end up in a lawsuit or defending himself from a $15,000 fine. That’s perfectly understandable. In that case, his best course is obvious, if the branch is a hazard (as he says it is). If his arborist will give him an opinion that the branch is a hazard, the homeowner should make sure the neighbor and the neighbor’s insurance carrier are both aware of that. Certified mail, return receipt requested, would be prudent. We suspect our homeowner will be happily surprised at how quickly the insurance carrier persuades his neighbor to cooperate.

Lawrence Peter postulated the idea years ago as a corollary to the Peter Principle: pull is always stronger than push. If our homeowner gets the neighbor’s insurance company on board, he’ll have a lot of pull.

Fine aside, could our homeowner be liable for causing substantial damage to his neighbor’s tree by not trimming according to A300 standards? Remember, our complainant wants to avoid litigation, trimming away the offending branch in a way that leaves him legally bulletproof. Even without the city’s statutes requiring trimming in compliance with A300, yesterday’s Booksa case from California should serve as a cautionary tale.

We have previously determined that California generally recognizes the Massachusetts Rule, which permits a neighbor to use “self-help,” trimming the branches back to the property line. Of course, California also seems to permit use of the private nuisance laws — something that seems like the Hawaii Rule or Virginia Rule — to let a homeowner like our correspondent force someone like his neighbor to remove the branch himself if it is a nuisance.

You recall that Mr. Patel was unhappy that the roots from Mr. Booska’s pine tree had heaved some of Mr. Patel’s sidewalk. He excavated along the edge of his yard down to three feet, severing the roots of the pine tree that had encroached under his sidewalk. The root cutting so weakened the tree that it started dying and was in danger of falling. Mr. Booska had to take the tree down, and he promptly sued.

The lower courts said that Patel had an absolute right to cut the roots on his property, citing the holding in Bonde v. Bishop. Not so, said the appeals court. Instead, Mr. Patel had an obligation to cut the roots in a reasonable manner that would achieve his aims — to stop sidewalk heaving — without undue harm to the tree. The Court held that “no person is permitted by law to use his property in such a manner that damage to his neighbor is a foreseeable result.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t the final answer. The Booska court was swayed by testimony that Mr. Patel could have protected his sidewalks with a much less aggressive method. We don’t yet know what the result would be if the only means of protecting Mr. Patel’s sidewalk would have required cutting that would necessarily be fatal, but our correspondent could provide us with the answer if he lands in court over cutting the branch to the property line, but not in accordance with A300.

In the situation our writer presented to us, his explanation for wanting the branch removed clashed with what the city understood the real motivation might be. In discussions with his arborist, our neighbor will need to consider whether the branch could be deemed a nuisance, a finding that Bonde suggests can be easily made in California. Even if it is not a nuisance, our correspondent maybe can start hacking away on his side of the property line, but the hacking should be done according to A300. Assuming that it cannot be (because the neighbor won’t permit trimming to the trunk), the trimming has to be done in a way that weighs our correspondent’s legitimate aims — whatever they are — against the health and safety of the tree. And preserves the tree, thus avoiding the $15,000 fine.

Oh, the complexity! And to make it worse, next week we’ll look at a Kafkaesque result where a neighbor’s right to cut back a tree can’t be exercised without the approval of the property owner, resulting in an old-fashioned California SLAPP-down.

Not to sound like the Bar Association, but we suggest that all of these legal gyrations well illustrate why spending a few bucks at your local counselor-at-law might be prudent, not just in California, but wherever you live.

Booska v. Patel, 24 Cal.App.4th 1786, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 241 (Ct.App. Div.1, 1994). Read the Booska decision again, or review our synopsis of it in yesterday’s Case of the Day. And if you’re caught up on all of your Kardashian reading, you might want to consider Herring v. Lisbon Partners once again, too.

– Tom Root

Case of the Day – Friday, June 6, 2025

Posted on June 6, 2025 by TLRoot tagged.

A SINGLE PINE AMONG A THOUSAND OAKS

A lone pine ... but not in Lone Pine, California.

A lone pine … but not in Thousand Oaks

Alert reader Rock Maple wrote us recently with a very good question. His inquiry is deceptively simple. He has a lone pine in Thousand Oaks, California. Rock asks: “I have a 50-year-old pine tree, and it is now overhanging on the neighbor’s property. He wants it trimmed back. I have refused. Can he legally trim my tree back?”

“Well, sure he can!” the rest of you readers say. After all, you’re fairly expert at the Massachusetts Rule. Normally, we would agree. But this is California we’re talking about, so nothing’s simple.

We’ll answer Rock’s question over the next three days, looking at how common-law notions of self-help enshrined in Michalson v. Nutting, the granddaddy of encroachment cases that gave us the Massachusetts Rule, are applied in California.

In today’s case, Bonde v. Bishop, Mr. Bishop had a big old white oak tree he loved as much as our reader is attached to his pine. But the oak was overhanging his neighbor’s place, and his neighbor wanted it trimmed back. Sound familiar? But Mr. Bishop’s oak had some problems. It shed branches quicker than Elon Musk loses friends. It had already taken out Mr. Bonde’s fence, his garage, and (very nearly) his head. Cleaning up after the tree was a daily chore, and the old tree was so dangerous that the Bondes wouldn’t leave their baby on the patio (probably a good idea, tree or no tree, but that’s a parenting decision).

The Bondes asked Mr. Bishop for permission to trim the tree, but he told them to touch not a single bough, or he’d sue. So they sued Mr. Bishop first, this being California (or just this being America), asking the Court to declare the tree a nuisance and force him to remove it.

The Court agreed. California does indeed follow the Massachusetts Rule, which meant that the Bondes had the right to trim the tree’s branches overhanging their property. But here, the problem went beyond that. Mr. Bishop’s white oak was a nuisance under California law, the Court held, because of the pervasive damage it caused. The Court, perhaps reacting to the extent of the mess as well as Mr. Bishop’s intransigence, ruled that a tree owner is liable for damage — even insignificant damage — is caused to his neighbor.

So, as we knew all along, our reader’s neighbor would have the right to trim the tree back to the property line. In fact, if the 50-year-old pine is a persistent branch-shedder, it might be a nuisance, and our reader’s refusal to let the neighbor trim it could leave him in Mr. Bishop’s position: having to remove the offending branches himself.

But — and this is California, so there’s always an “on the other hand” — as we will see tomorrow, there are limits on what the neighbor can do, even on his own property.

The Bondes could no longer park their kid on the back patio, out of fear that a falling branch would bean him. The infant was not amused ...

The Bondes could no longer park their kid on the back patio, out of fear that a falling branch would bean him. The bambino was not happy …

Bonde v. Bishop, 112 Cal.App.2d 1, 245 P.2d 617 (Ct.App. Div. 1, 1952). Some of the branches of Bishop’s white oak tree were overhanging Bonde’s property by 25 feet, about 40 feet off the ground. Early one September morning, a large limb broke loose from the tree, smashed through Bonde’s garage, and destroyed a section of fence. Bishop said it was not his responsibility, and Bonde’s insurance paid for the repair. The tree continually dropped smaller branches on Bonde’s roof, driveway and patio. One small branch almost hit Bondes while he was standing in the middle of his driveway. During the rainy season, it became a two-hour job every Sunday to clear tree debris from the gutters and the drain spouts. The Bondes were afraid of the overhanging limbs and stopped leaving their baby out in the patio.

The debris required the Bondes to sweep the patio and driveway daily and rake the lawn before mowing. They put screens on the gutters so they would not have to clean out the troughs. When Mrs. Bonde told Mr. Bishop that the Bondes desired the tree cut back to their line, he not only refused but warned her that if they had it cut back and damaged the tree in any way, he would sue them. Nevertheless, after the limb fell Bishop had the foliage thinned out. Finally, Bonde sued Bishop, asking the trial court to declare that Bishop’s tree was a nuisance.

The court agreed and ordered Bishop to abate the nuisance and awarded damages.

Bishop appealed.

Mr. Bishop’s white oak dropped branches with regularity.

Held: The Court agreed the tree was a nuisance and ordered Bishop to abate the nuisance. The Court explained the rule in California generally is that to the extent that limbs or roots of a tree extend upon adjoining landowner’s property, the adjoining owner may remove them, but only to the property boundary line. Nevertheless, the remedy isn’t exclusive. An owner of a tree, the branches of which overhang adjoining property, is liable for damages caused by overhanging branches. The Court said that even insignificant damage is enough for the statute — might this include falling leaves in the fall, one wonders — because the significance of the damages goes to the amount the plaintiff can recover, not to whether the plaintiff has a case on which to sue to begin with.

But, the Court said, absent the tree being a nuisance, no landowner has a cause of action from the mere fact that branches overhang his premises. Instead, the adjoining landowner’s right to cut off the overhanging branches is a sufficient remedy, indeed, the only remedy. In order to obtain a court owner that the tree’s owner do something, an adjoining landowner must show that the tree is a nuisance under the nuisance statutes.

The Court observed sadly that “apparently this is one of those rows between neighbors in which the defendants are standing on what they erroneously believe to be their strict legal rights to the exclusion of any consideration of the fair, decent, neighborly and legal thing to do.”

– Tom Root