Neighbor cut down my trees!
Gary Jensen
lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
lot). The neighbor just moved in about 6 months ago, and I haven't had any
contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined back
yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard, directly
on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes, some
of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
upset, to say the least.
Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
there some setback required?
Thanks, Gary
Philo
<tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
>neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
>directly on the line?
Talk to your neighbor first (though it seems he's pretty well made up
his mind). FWIW, you may consider moving - sounds like it's going to
SUCK living next to this guy.
Otherwise, you need to talk to an attorney. Just call a lawyer and say
"my neighbor cut down old growth trees on a shared property line and
on our property. Is it worth suing?" Obviously the court can't make
the neighbor put the trees back, so making him pay money damages is
the best you can do.
>Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
>there some setback required?
This is a zoning/ property covenant issue. Call the county office.
Philo
Camlawnman
>
>Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
>neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
>there some setback required?
.i dont think you can really do anything going to court is a lot of money,i say
just plant new trees after the fence is up or better yet see if he will buy you
10 trees to replace the ten that are gone.in a perfect world he should of asked
permission.
"She ll make you take your clothes off and go dancing in the rain" {Cam99}
fox
have lived in, if a neighbor puts up a fence on the property line,m
it then becomes a mutually owned fence no matter who pays for it.
Check with your attorney on this. As for the trees, If they were on
your side I do not see how he could cut them down, they belong to
you..he should and most likely would be liable. Yes, he could delimb
what was on his side, but not to be able to cut them down. Those on
the line would be another matter. He should not be able to just cut
them either. Sounds like I would wait and see exactly where he puts up
the fence, and if the law is in your favor, paint yur side and hang
stuff off of it..that will get his goat....no not really, get to an
attorney, as I see a heated neighbor fued in the making here...it
appears his mind is set thru his actions he has commited, so I would
not bother with talking to him, and head right to a lawyer ASAP...time
to put a crimp in his life.
foxeye
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 18:20:52 -0700, "Gary Jensen"
<tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
>lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
>weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
>which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
>common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
>lot). The neighbor just moved in about 6 months ago, and I haven't had any
>contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
>the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
>into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined back
>yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
>spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
>but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
>flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
>fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard, directly
>on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes, some
>of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
>directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
>down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
>upset, to say the least.
>
>Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
>neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
>directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
>there some setback required?
>
>Thanks, Gary
>
"Remove nospam to send email"
Foxeye
fox...@nospamddyne.com
Just my .02 cents worth!
James Harrington
Check the local ordinances regarding fences near or on property lines.
Check to see who placed the stakes. If the fence posts aren't where they
should be, I'd recommend you speak to your neighbor first and then to the
appropriate inspector if necessary. In regard to the tree(s), you'll need
to consult an attorney. If you should choose to reverse this order, you
might also find out that you own a fence. Regards, Jim
CAS
>
> >From: "Gary Jensen"
> >
> >Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
> >neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
> >directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
> >there some setback required?
>
I think you should forget about it. Having a fence there
will probably make your place look better as well as his.
So, unless you really think your neighbor did this to
provoke you, just chalk it off to a minor re-decoration
of your landscape, have a beer, and offer to help the
neighbor put up the fence.
If , on the other hand, you think the neighbor is trying
to start a war, I think you should have a beer and offer
to help him put up the fence.
You can always plant new trees, but you are stuck with your
neighbor . Make the best of it. Bend a little. It will save
you time, money, and aggravation....
He probably thought he was doing you a favor, anyway....
Andy in Dallas
Danny Bolt
as a machine in which you enter as a pig and emerge as a sausage.
Dan
Bennet K. Langlotz <ne...@langlotz.com> wrote in message
news:376d8519....@news.teleport.com...
> "Gary Jensen" <tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> >I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a
third
> >lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
> >weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10
trees,
> >which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
> >common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
> >lot).
>
> Before you speak to the neighbor, get a lawyer. Call any of these
> Minnesota Attorney Referral Services:
> MSBA Attorney Referral Service -- 800-292-4152
> Hennepin County Bar Association Referral Service -- 612-339-8777
> Ramsey County Bar Association Attorney Referral Service --
> 651-224-1775
>
> Also, try the state attorney general or city attorney. Out here on
> Oregon, poaching a tree is a crime. It may be the same in MN.
>
> Don't listen to the folks who say that you should just replant, and
> try to make friends. The man knowingly stole and destroyed your
> property. There is no excuse for this, and it should be treated in
> the harshest possible way. Remember, you neighbor is smugly smiling,
> knowing that he got exactly what he wanted, without respecting your
> property rights.
>
> Ideally, you can sue him for damages, get a simple lien on his
> property, and force him to sell it to pay you. Thus, you get monetary
> compensation, and a neighbor who isn't a their.
>
> An attorney might take the case on contingency, or it might not be
> terribly expensive to pursue.
>
> Go get 'em! And tell us how it works out.
>
> Good luck!
> --
> Bennet K. Langlotz
> ne...@langlotz.com
sltracey
land surveyed and the stakes are an off set from the property line on his side
of the property.
I would definitely be mad if a neighbor cut down trees on my property.
sltracey
Gary Jensen wrote:
> I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
> lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
> weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
> which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
> common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
> lot). The neighbor just moved in about 6 months ago, and I haven't had any
> contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
> the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
> into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined back
> yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
> spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
> but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
> flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
> fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard, directly
> on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes, some
> of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
> directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
> down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
> upset, to say the least.
>
> Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
> neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
> directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
> there some setback required?
>
> Thanks, Gary
--
sltracey
Remove first s in sltracey to reply.
Christopher Cooper
You're getting a lot of advise on this one. Some good....some not so good.
A course of action would be to investigate as much of the legalities as
possible before heading in any direction. A few have already been
suggested.
1) Check with local building codes on property set-backs
2) Check with zoning to see if there is an easement between your two
properties. The trees may not have been yours or his, in which case the
lessor of the easement may have recourse.
3) Are there any C.C.&R's. in your neighborhood? If so, do they disallow
cutting of any particular size diameter tree trunk without first procuring
permission from the association?
4) Is there an ordinance in your community or county concerning removing
certain types of trees without a permit? i.e. Oak, Maple, etc.
5) Is the survey of the property line accurate? Did the neighbor do it
himself, or call in a licensed surveyor? Regardless of the qualifications,
surveyors have been known to incorrectly stake a property line on more
occasions than anyone would like to think. Worth checking.
6) In many localities a fence constructed on the property line by one
party will become the property of both after specific periods of time
elapse. Another avenue to investigate.
Just a few things to check out before confronting the neighbor, which I do
not recommend at this time.
Chris
Bennet K. Langlotz
>I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
>lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
>weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
>which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
>common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
>lot).
Before you speak to the neighbor, get a lawyer. Call any of these
Douglas Stanley
First, I'd have your own survey done - you might be surprised. If the
trees were on your side of the line they belong to you. If they were
partially on your side, they are property in common. Do you realize
what a 20" inch tree is worth? I would get an estimate and provide
him with a bill. If that doesn't work you may be able to take him to
court yourself without the need of a lawyer - however that's not
likely because of the tree's value. It won't cost you anything to
talk to a lawyer on a first call. I would personally pursue this as
far as it took. He's the one who stole your property so he doesn't
value your relationship anyway. As an alternative, if your survey
shows that he's building his fence on any part of your property you
can simply do as he did - wait till he's all finished contructing it
and painting or staining it - then take a chain saw and cut the sucker
down.
>I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
>lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
>weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
>which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
>common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
>lot). The neighbor just moved in about 6 months ago, and I haven't had any
>contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
>the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
>into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined back
>yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
>spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
>but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
>flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
>fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard, directly
>on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes, some
>of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
>directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
>down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
>upset, to say the least.
>
>Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
>neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
>directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
>there some setback required?
>
>Thanks, Gary
>
>
Benoit Evans
depend on the laws of Minnesota (fences) and probably the ordinances of
your local authority (town or county).
Land surveying is NOT an exact art. Certified surveyors can and do
disagree in some cases because of the nature of the land (topography)
and the interpretation of prior deeds, easement orders, expropriations,
etc. DO NOT assume that your neighbour's surveyor's line is uncontestable.
Who cut the trees. If it was a local tree contractor, he may be liable
too since he did not or could not determine if the owners were in
agreement over trees on or very near the line.
Call your local authority and ask about fences and trees. They will tell
you what the local requirements are and may have a booklet on the
subject, especially for trees. In some places a permit is required
before ANY tree of a certain size can be felled. And in some places the
court can order the trees to be replaced with more or less mature live
specimens. And in some places, its woodsman, woodsman swing your axe.
Then, see a lawyer for an initial consultation. This will probably cost
you around $50 bucks or so for a half hour.
Minnesota law is rather strict about fences. BOTH property owners must
agree on the type of fence and the costs to be shared BEFORE any work is
done. If they cannot agree, one of them can take the matter to the local
"viewers", who are local government officials who by law act as
inspectors and arbitrators in the matter of fences. The viewers can
decide what kind of fence is to be built, how the costs are to be shared
and when the work is to begin. Once a fence exists and if it has been
recorded, its upkeep and replacement is binding on all successors of the
original owners. See Chapter 344, Partition Fences, of the Minnesota
Revised Statutes 1999 <http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/344/>.
AFTER gettin your preliminary information, you might want to talk CALMLY
with your neighbour just to see what kind of fellow he is. He may be a
not-to-bright but nice guy who sincerely believed that he had the right
to do what he did. If so, he will be very embarassed and will probably
be open to reasonable suggestions for correcting the problem. On the
other hand, he may be a triple-dipped S.O.B. who will not even give you
the time of day. Knowing what kind of person he is will help you decide
what to do next. If your lawyer wants to get an emergency order to halt
all work in progress, try to speak with your neighbour BEFORE the notice
is served. If he's a nice guy tell him its coming, but do not cancel it.
In any case, there will probably always be a fence and you will have to
share the costs of its upkeep.
Good luck.
Regards,
Benoit Evans
rric...@lanminds.com
>You can always plant new trees, but you are stuck with your
>neighbor . Make the best of it. Bend a little. It will save
>you time, money, and aggravation....
>
>He probably thought he was doing you a favor, anyway....
>
> Andy in Dallas
I don't know. If it was one or two trees, then maybe I could see just
making the best of it. But TEN trees? That seems a bit much. I
would have talked it over with my neighbor before starting a project
like that! Besides, don't trees add to your property value?
Rebecca
Remove "not" when replying by email
sh...@ecn.ab.ca
: Camlawnman wrote:
: >
: > >From: "Gary Jensen"
: > >Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
: > >neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
: > >directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
: > >there some setback required?
: > ********************************************************
: I think you should forget about it. Having a fence there
: will probably make your place look better as well as his.
: So, unless you really think your neighbor did this to
: provoke you, just chalk it off to a minor re-decoration
: of your landscape, have a beer, and offer to help the
: neighbor put up the fence.
: If , on the other hand, you think the neighbor is trying
: to start a war, I think you should have a beer and offer
: to help him put up the fence.
: You can always plant new trees, but you are stuck with your
: neighbor . Make the best of it. Bend a little. It will save
: you time, money, and aggravation....
What kind of asshole advice is this? You obviously have had TOO many of
those beers. Do you know HOW LONG it takes to grow a tree 20 inches in
diameter? What a fuckhead.
: He probably thought he was doing you a favor, anyway....
: Andy in Dallas
--
Sirs39
My humble suggestion:
Before you do all this legal investigating, talk with your neighbor. It could
be an honest mistake has occured. It could be that the neighbor did this
horrible trespass on purpose......,but if he went to the expense of getting a
survey, of having stakes planted that clearly show property lines,and then
leaving the stakes in place for all the world to see while he cut down what
appears to be clearly your trees.....I don't know, but it doesn't make
sense.There was a case here in town a few years back where a similiar situation
arose; a guy marked off his property lines clearly, even spray painted the ones
to come down, and hired a tree removal service to take them down, so he could
put up a fence (I believe to comply with a code thing for a swimming pool.) He
hires a service, goes out of town, and the service takes the wrong trees,which
happened to be some of his neighbors.
My point is, it sounds like there may be more to this,and the only way to find
out is to approach the neighbor.
In any event, best of luck....and if you find that the neighbor DID do this on
purpose, sue his ass!!
J
Tom Ruta
>On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:41:34 -0700, CAS <aa...@topher.net> wrote:
...
>I don't know. If it was one or two trees, then maybe I could see just
>making the best of it. But TEN trees? That seems a bit much. I
>would have talked it over with my neighbor before starting a project
>like that! Besides, don't trees add to your property value?
Yeah - and in some places (Vancouver, BC for instance)
you'll fined BIG TIME for cutting trees.
You sometimes see this sort of behaviour in cottage country
where folks will chop down everything at the property line -
then they wonder why there are problems with erosion, blow
downs, etc.
I sure wouldn't want a neighbour like that.
Tom
==============================================================
Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?
http://www.cottageliving.com
==============================================================
Gary Sanders
The issue at hand is who's property the trees are on. If the trees are truly
on his property stop moaning and learn to live with it. If the trees are on your
property then have a nice long chat with him and his checkbook. If the trees
are strattling the line, then your tree isnt going to last long with his half
gone. As for a fence, they go along line but shouldnt cross it.
In article <7kjsl3$3u$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>,
Gary Jensen <tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
>lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
>weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
>which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
>common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
>lot). The neighbor just moved in about 6 months ago, and I haven't had any
>contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
>the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
>into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined back
>yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
>spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
>but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
>flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
>fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard, directly
>on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes, some
>of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
>directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
>down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
>upset, to say the least.
>
>Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
>neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
>directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
>there some setback required?
>
>Thanks, Gary
>
>
--
Gary W. Sanders g...@n8emr.cmhnet.org, 72277,1325
N8EMR @ N8JYV Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)
Gary Sanders
Someone wants to put up a fence on there property or at least what they
think is there property line. TALK TO THE GUY. Maybe your survey is off and
the trees are on his side. Maybe his surveys off and your trees are on his
side. Maybe he hired someone to cut the tress down and they screwed up.
In article <37717c1c...@206.132.58.101>, fox <fox...@w2w.ddyne.com> wrote:
>Looks like your in for some fun. As for a fence, in two states that I
>have lived in, if a neighbor puts up a fence on the property line,m
>it then becomes a mutually owned fence no matter who pays for it.
>Check with your attorney on this. As for the trees, If they were on
>your side I do not see how he could cut them down, they belong to
>you..he should and most likely would be liable. Yes, he could delimb
>what was on his side, but not to be able to cut them down. Those on
John Barry
news:7klcul$7...@user2.infinet.com...
> I dont know why people are talking lawyers and neighbor fueds.
> Someone wants to put up a fence on there property or at least what they
> think is there property line. TALK TO THE GUY. Maybe your survey is off
and
> the trees are on his side. Maybe his surveys off and your trees are on his
> side. Maybe he hired someone to cut the tress down and they screwed up.
Hi, Gary.
Sure sounds like a pre-emptory strike to me, with a major re-do of adjoining
property. Maybe this fool was related to "Mr. T"?
The sawyer sure ain't neigborly. Apparently, his work went past his own
survey line.
He really needs to be made to pay for what he did. Maybe that'll stimulate
_him_ to leave.
Who knows what he might do next? Open up a cattle feed-lot?
HTH,
John
Brad Murray
try to settle our own differences first according to Bennet we must have
a lawyer in hand before any communication is made.
In article <376d8519....@news.teleport.com>, ne...@langlotz.com
says...
> "Gary Jensen" <tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> >I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
> >lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
> >weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
> >which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
> >common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
> >lot).
>
C. Brunner
wrote:
>The value of the trees is calculated by subtracting the appraised
>value of your property minus the appraised value after the trees are
>removed. Type, age, and location of the trees often determines the
>value. A single well-established tree could be as much as $10,000.
>
>A neighbor who cuts down ten trees along the property line and doesn't
>discuss with the other neighbor has a major responsibility problem.
>My advise to talk with an attorney to discuss the options and effects.
>Once large trees are cut down, it will be a long long time before they
>can be replaced.
This is a wise reply to an awful story. It's especially interesting
because, on the large tracts of rural land we have around here (AL),
the most massive trees are the ones on the property line. Even though
they routinely re-survey just before logging, the commercial timber
companies leave the trees on the line. One timber guy told us, "We
NEVER cut the trees along, or even within a few feet, of the line.
You'd be amazed at how many thousands of dollars the adjacent property
owner can get in settlement, for each of his trees you cut by
mistake." Find out your legal standing, and AT LEAST obtain
reimbursement for the value of the trees that were on your side of the
line.
C. Brunner
(Address contains a spamblock: "NOT")
Tom Arendt
Check with your local building inspector. In the two townships I have
now lived in in Minnesota, Linwood and Wyoming, you are not allowed to
erect a fence on the property line. There was always a set back from
it. As for ;your trees you have gotten some excellent advise, but do
approach and talk to your neighbor.
Tom
dav...@myremarq.com
beforehand would make my blood boil!! Like others have
said:
1. Find out exactly where the property lines are and who's
trees they are. (yours, his or common area)
2. Discuss this with the neighbor
3. If your not satisfied with #1 and #2 than consult with an
attorney.
These trees can be worth thousands and in some areas cutting
down trees that aren't yours can result in treble damages
(3X the value). This neighbor could have made a very costly
mistake.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Noemi Ybarra
I agree with much of the advice given here...
Talk to the neighbor and find out what he was thinking. Do some
research or hire someone else to find out what the rules and regulations
are there. Then, armed with the necessary information, decide what to
do.
But, first and foremost, have your property surveyed so that you are
sure of exactly where that property line is.
Noemi
Bennet K. Langlotz
>... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across.
I should also note that he may have SOLD your trees for a profit,
since logs that big get a very nice price. Then again, if he is as
big a fool as it seems, the tree company probably charged him, and
made a big profit, perhaps with extra surcharges for hauling
extra-large logs!
I would lay even odds that the tree company can not be found.
Organizations that do this kind of work, ignoring marked property
lines, often get paid in cash, and don't have logos on the truck door.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>...and people wonder why our society is so over-litigious. We can't even
>try to settle our own differences first according to Bennet we must have
>a lawyer in hand before any communication is made.
When you start talking to a neighbor who has likely committed crimes,
torts, and violations of your property rights, you are having a
legally important conversation. To do this before knowing the law,
and before getting proper legal advice on a matter that may have tens
of thousands of dollars at stake is foolish, and may compromise your
position.
Do you really expect that talking to the neighbor to settle
differences will provide any compensation?
If the tree cutter gets away with it, our society is UNDER-litigious.
If one is afraid of paying a lawyer $100 for a bit of good advice, one
can call the county to see if a survey was recorded. One can get
advice from the city attorney to see if a crime has been committed.
One can learn from the gov't about fence laws, and rights at property
lines.
But one won't end up with adequate compensation for some massive old
trees.
See a lawyer.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Before you do all this legal investigating, talk with your neighbor. It could
>be an honest mistake has occured.
So if the doctor accidentally removes your wife's kidney by accident,
and she is on dialysis for life, you forgive him instead of getting
just compensation for your damages?
It might keep it from being a tree poaching crime, but innocent intent
(and he did intend to cut the trees) is not a defense to a tort action
like this.
It could be that the neighbor did this
>He
>hires a service, goes out of town, and the service takes the wrong trees,which
>happened to be some of his neighbors.
Then either he is liable for his negligent hiring of incompetents, or
his failure to supervise, or the service is liable. But that doesn't
mean the compensation is due.
People need to be responsible for their actions, so that blind
incompetence is not a defense. Imagine what our society would devolve
to if the law held that it were.
Gary Sanders
John Barry <j...@zedak.com> wrote:
>Gary Sanders <g...@user2.infinet.com> wrote in message
>news:7klcul$7...@user2.infinet.com...
>> I dont know why people are talking lawyers and neighbor fueds.
>> Someone wants to put up a fence on there property or at least what they
>> think is there property line. TALK TO THE GUY. Maybe your survey is off
>and
>> the trees are on his side. Maybe his surveys off and your trees are on his
>> side. Maybe he hired someone to cut the tress down and they screwed up.
>
>Hi, Gary.
>
>Sure sounds like a pre-emptory strike to me, with a major re-do of adjoining
>property. Maybe this fool was related to "Mr. T"?
>The sawyer sure ain't neigborly. Apparently, his work went past his own
>survey line.
Neighgborly, Using his own property the way he wants (again assuming it was his). It should be none of your bussiness what your neighbor does on his property.,
>He really needs to be made to pay for what he did. Maybe that'll stimulate
>_him_ to leave.
Hmm, Let me see, Someone just moves in. Do you really think he can afford to
leave. Doubtfull
>Who knows what he might do next? Open up a cattle feed-lot?
And what would be wrong with that? His property, plus he most likley could
throw a heck of a BBQ.
Tom Arendt
is run from a bench mark and not old iron. Irons have a way of being
moved over time and a bench mark is the only true way to do a survey.
Tom
>"Gary Jensen" <tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
Chuck
wrote:
>I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
>lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
>weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
>which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
>common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
>lot). The neighbor just moved in about 6 months ago, and I haven't had any
>contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
>the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
>into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined back
>yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
>spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
>but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
>flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
>fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard, directly
>on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes, some
>of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
>directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
>down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
>upset, to say the least.
>
>Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
>neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
>directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
>there some setback required?
Oh boy.... That's why I moved out in the middle of nowhere. I own 23 acres
and don't have to put up with assholes anymore. Now, if someone gets too
close, I can just shoot them and say they were trespassing ;)
But seriously, it does sound like you are going to have a problem with this
guy and your first approach might be to just come right out with it and say,
"I noticed you cut some trees down when I was on vacation. Did you know that
some of them were on my property?" See how he reacts. If he goes in to
"asshole mode", you know that a lawyer is the only recourse. Considering the
cost of having those trees replaced/transplanted, I would say you have a
pretty good case for one of those "freebie" lawyers that work on xx%
commission. If your neighbor gets a look of surprise on his face when you
tell him they were your trees, then you can go from there and maybe work out
some type of compensation. Transplanting adult trees can cost hundreds, even
thousands of $$, so you may end up in court if you want full restitution.
If you are going down the "asshole" route, check with your city/town building
inspector and see if he pulled a permit. He SHOULD have to cut that may trees
and of that size. Then ask the inspector why he let him cut down YOUR trees?
A final inspection is always needed on a permit.
If you enjoy being an asshole back, you could always just do things to his
property when he goes away or whenever. Maybe you can drive HIM out. Why
should you move?
Sounds like a shitty situation to be in. But, you already know that.
Brad Murray
says...
Propaganda that Bennet learned in law school aside (assuming he is even
telling the truth), you will not hurt anything by talking to the guy
first. He doesn't know that you may call the cops on him. Just find out
why he did it and why he didn't ask you. You may make a new friend. You
may make a new enemy. If you go to a lawyer first, you'll make a number
of enemies instead guaranteed: your neighbor, his lawyer, and your lawyer
when you get your bill.
tshr...@my-deja.com
to avoid legal recourse:
Nature's revenge
Plant a row of poplars or other fast-growing trees along the fence
line, as close as possible. In a few years, he has a whole forest
dropping leaves and seeds into his fenced backyard, and you have your
trees back. Most people cut down trees because they don't like the work
associated with them, or they want sun for pools/sun bathing etc.
Replanting the trees would probably put a crimp in his style.
You could also plant sweetgums, you know the trees with the spiked
balls for seedpods. I don't know how fast they grow, but they're a real
pain. Just remember you get what falls from the trees too.
A faster growing option would be an aggressive vine like honeysuckle
(don't know how well it does in Minnesota). Plant it along the base of
the fence and in three years it would completely cover it, including
his side.
Good luck.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Brad Murray
says...
> sir...@aol.com (Sirs39) wrote:
>
> >Before you do all this legal investigating, talk with your neighbor. It could
> >be an honest mistake has occured.
>
> So if the doctor accidentally removes your wife's kidney by accident,
> and she is on dialysis for life, you forgive him instead of getting
> just compensation for your damages?
Please try to tell us what bearing that has on this case? BTW - you used
the word 'accidentally.' Too many people think that nothing is an
accident because they can get more money if there is any kind of intent.
> People need to be responsible for their actions, so that blind
> incompetence is not a defense. Imagine what our society would devolve
> to if the law held that it were.
If people were responsible for their actions, most lawyers wouldn't have
jobs and the world would be a much nicer place.
Terry Neafie
OUCH! I had a similar experience twenty years ago but it turned out that
the trees were on the neighbors property. By that I mean when a line
was strung along the property line from corner post to corner post only
the roots and branches crossed the imaginary plane defined by that
line. I was fuming mad! The only reason the guy did this was so he
could have some free firewood! Since the trees were not mine I didn't
have a legal leg to stand on so I decided I would have to move to a
better neighborhood. Three Realtors told me that one tree could add
from $1000 - $5000 to the price of the property. Depending on the
aesthetics the tree added and the overall price of the land and
improvements.
It sounds like you possibly have legal damages to the tune of $10,000 -
$50,000. It's too bad you haven't met this guy previously since now
you're going to put him on the defensive at your initial meeting. No
matter what, he's going to think he moved in next to a repugnant
neighbor. I would gather my composure, introduce myself, let him know
how I felt, then feel out his response. If he's a born looser you'll
know it and know what you're up against. Then it's a matter of finding
out what the damages are and what it'll cost to recoup them. Only a
Lawyer can give you accurate advise. They set the system up that way.
Gary Jensen wrote:
>
> I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
> lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
> weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
> which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
> common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
> lot). The neighbor just moved in about 6 months ago, and I haven't had any
> contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
> the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
> into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined back
> yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
> spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
> but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
> flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
> fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard, directly
> on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes, some
> of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
> directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
> down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
> upset, to say the least.
>
> Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does a
> neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
> directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
> there some setback required?
>
> Thanks, Gary
Bennet K. Langlotz
>>... just compensation for your damages?
>
>Please try to tell us what bearing that has on this case?
Both are civil tort actions, neither requiring an intent to harm. The
one tort is negligence, the other is trespass (perhaps something more
that a property rights attorney could explain).
BTW - you used
>the word 'accidentally.' Too many people think that nothing is an
>accident because they can get more money if there is any kind of intent.
One is entitled to "get money" when one has actionable damages under
the law. whether or not it is an "accident rarely applies. If the
neighbor tried to cut only his own trees, and one fell to knock down
one of the neighbor's (or killed the neighbor's wife), the cutting
neighbor would be liable for the damage.
>> People need to be responsible for their actions, so that blind
>> incompetence is not a defense. Imagine what our society would devolve
>> to if the law held that it were.
>
>If people were responsible for their actions, most lawyers wouldn't have
>jobs and the world would be a much nicer place.
but in the real world, it is a good thing that we have laws that
protect the rights of the innocent, and make wrongdoers and
incompetents responsible. Don't blame the lawyers.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Propaganda that Bennet learned in law school aside (assuming he is even
>telling the truth), you will not hurt anything by talking to the guy
>first.
Probably not, but maybe you will. (And should a person take legal
advice from someone who considers law school education "propaganda"?)
>Just find out
>why he did it and why he didn't ask you. You may make a new friend.
He is already a thief or an idiot. I prefer to find my friends with
other characteristics..
The point of seeing a lawyer is to get advice. You won't *have* to
sue, unless you want to. You won't be giving up your free will. Your
neighbor need never know, and another lawyer need never be involved.
The key is to get informed of your rights. Why go chat with the
neighbor out of ignorance, not knowing what information you need, or
what information you want to be sure not to give?
Pay a few dollars, inform yourself, and make a good decision based on
good advice.
James Penrose
: Are you sure that the stakes are the property line? Maybe the neighbor had the
: land surveyed and the stakes are an off set from the property line on his side
: of the property.
: I would definitely be mad if a neighbor cut down trees on my property.
My first thought would be to definitely confirm where exactly the
property line is..if it's not where you think it is, he may own the
trees. ;)
never assume what you think is the common boundary really is, I'd get a
surveyor and check or ask him if he had a survey doen and if he will let
you see it..he may have done his homework..though he still sound slike a
jerk, I am very fond of trees and would have left them standing.
Jim P.
John R Mudd
>
>since logs that big get a very nice price.
If you mean to imply for sold for lumber, then no, I doubt very much
that there was any profit involved. In general, 20" diameter trees
are not particularly large, and most sawmills won't touch a yard tree
if they value their equipment.
It's an urban legend that yard trees are worth $$$ as lumber.
Might be nice firewood, though, after it was seasoned and split.
Philo
>Along those lines, file suit for damage and file a lien (sp) for the
>amount of damage against the neighbor's property. That lien will make
>it impossible for him to get a loan secured by the property, or to
>sell the house.
*This* is the kind of thing one should talk to an attorney and the
neighbor before doing. Filing this lien is not the greatest way to say
"hello"...
>This is the legal equivalent of smacking him against the head with a
>2x4 to get his attention. Hey, it's clear he was not paying attention
>to you when he cut the trees. This will get his attention.
But this is wonderful imagery...
Philo
Bennet K. Langlotz
>It's an urban legend that yard trees are worth $$$ as lumber.
Out here in the Pacific Northwest, it is a rural and suburban fact,
although I can't confirm the size threshold of commercial interest.
James P Doyle
a realtor who manages a rental property next door to me had a tree
service cut down 4 pine trees between the two properties. the only
problem is two of the trees were on my property. i tried talking to the
realtor. i was mad, and told him what i thought and that i wanted him to
remove the stumps and fill the holes. he agreed, but never held up to
his end of the deal, so i took him to small claims court. got $500. for
both trees.
if he puts up a fence right on the property line i hope you have a good
weedeater. also find out who cut the trees, did they get hauled off?
here in NC, many logging companies will cut your trees down and pay you
for the lumber. it all depends on how many trees you have and how big
they are.
good luck.
John R Mudd
>
>>It's an urban legend that yard trees are worth $$$ as lumber.
>
>Out here in the Pacific Northwest, it is a rural and suburban fact,
>although I can't confirm the size threshold of commercial interest.
Sorry, Bennett, I live in the same metro area that you do, and it is
not a fact.
You might be able to find someone with a bandmill (WoodMizer) that'll
cut the tree, but no commercial mill is going to take a risk on a yard
tree. The possibility of there being metal in the tree is just way too
great to risk damage to the blade. Even something as small as a nail
can damage the carbide teeth on a sawblade. And yard trees almost
always have some sort of metal in them.
I don't recall the original poster mentioning what kind of trees these
were. Most yard trees of the deciduous varieties do not have nice
straight trunks with few/no branches that are valued by wood buyers.
Roughsawn (un-planed) wood is typically sold in 10' lengths.
And as you should know, 20" diameter conifers out here in the Pacific NW
are just children. There's not a whole lot of heartwood in them. They're
for firewood, not lumber.
Gary Jensen
yesterday. This is the first time I've posted a question to a newsgroup,
and I have to say I'm impressed with all the valuable advice I've received.
Heres an update, to let everyone know where things stand at this point...
sorry for the length of this post, but there were lots of responses to my
original post.
After discovering yesterday that the trees had been cut down, and that the
neighbor was not home, I taped a note to his front door. The note explained
that my family and I had been out of town for the weekend, and discovered
our trees cut down when we returned. I asked him to contact me with an
explanation, and gave him my home and work phone numbers. I also indicated
that I would be home from work the following evening at 5:00 p.m. My wife
was home with our kids all day today, and indicated that one of our kids had
seen the homeowner in the afternoon... he has a big dog that barks when I
knock on the door, so he probably needs to come home periodically to feed
him. The note is gone from the front door, so he's apparently read it...
even so, he still made no attempt to contact me during the day, and was not
there when I got home at 5:00 pm. It's now after 9:00 pm, and he's still
not home. I'm not sure what kind of person I'm dealing with, but the fact
that he seems to be evading me is not a good sign.
During the day today, I contacted the Maplewood city office, and they
indicated there are no ordinances requiring setbacks for fences. The person
I talked (one of their planners) also indicated they try to stay out of
disputes about trees, and have nothing on the books in the way of
restrictions.
I rechecked the survey markers along the line. There's an old, old metal
fence post, that has bars protruding downward to either side to mark the 90
degree corner of the lot. That old marker is at one end of the 50 foot area
where the trees were cut. At the base of the metal fence post is an
official-looking survey marker... metal, with a plastic cap. Also at the
base of the metal fence post is a wooden lath stake, which has a ribbon tied
to it which reads "property line"... there is a matching wooden lath stake
at the other end of the 50 foot tree-cutting area which also reads "property
line". On the other side of that wooden lath stake, the neighbor has
pounded in two-inch metal pipes, spaced about 8 feet apart... these pipes
are obviously there for his new fence, and are along the property line he
shares with another neighbor. It seems pretty obvious that the metal
fencepost is the corner of the neighbors lot. The wooden lath stake at the
other end of the 50 foot area is in line with the 2 inch piles, which is
pretty strong evidence that the neighbor believes it's the property line.
What throws me about this situation, is that he went ahead and cut down
trees on my side of the line anyway!
I discussed my situation with one of the lawyers at my workplace (170 people
in our office, and we have 3-4 lawyers on staff). She cannot practice law
outside of our office (it's a government office), so she referred me to
another lawyer, who then referred me to another lawyer who specializes in
property disputes of this nature. I haven't yet had the chance to contact
that lawyer yet.
Some of you mentioned that, because I'd have to live with this neighbor, I
should try and 'get along'. Actually, our lots are on opposite sides of the
block, with each lot going 300 feet deep into the center of the block. The
back corners of our lots only join for about 50 feet, so it's not like we
have lots of our property lines in common. Bottom line is, I'm not that
worried about getting this guy ticked off, and am willing to do whatever is
necessary to receive compensation.
I spent some time this evening running a string along the property line.
Then I took pictures of each stump, being careful to include the string and
a tape measure showing the width of the stump. Of the 12 trees that were
cut down, 6 of them were definitely on my property... those trees measured
13", 5", 17", 15", 6", and 20". Of the remaining 6 trees, 3 of them are
directly on the property line, and measure 5", 20", and 17". I found a book
in the local library called "Neighbor Law", by Cora Jordan, which indicates
that trees on a boundary line are common property, and cannot be cut down
without the mutual consent of both neighbors.
I also inquired at the local garden center regarding having someone come out
and appraise the trees that were cut down. They referred me to a tree care
business, who referred me to a person whose sole business is appraising
trees. I called the person and left a voicemail, but haven't heard back
yet. If her service is inexpensive, I'd probably get her to take a look at
the trees, just so I have some documentation. I'm kind of worried that the
neighbor might show up with a stump-grinder, and then the evidence would be
gone.
Also, someone expressed concern that the neighbor may have sold the trees
for profit. Nope... the trees are still laying on the ground, and he's cut
them up into approximately 5 foot sections. My guess is that he's probably
going to make a woodpile in that corner of the yard, and I'll get to look at
that instead of my trees.
Someone also mentioned that I should check with the city/town building
inspector to see if he pulled a permit, and ask the inspector why the city
allowed them to cut down my trees. That sounds like an easy step to take,
so I'll check out that angle tomorrow before I contact the lawyer.
If anyone has more advice, based on this additional information, please let
me know.
Thanks, Gary
Danny Bolt <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7kk1s0$cls$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Sounds like fun in a way, but remember that Ambrose Bierce defined a
lawsuit
> as a machine in which you enter as a pig and emerge as a sausage.
>
> Dan
>
> Bennet K. Langlotz <ne...@langlotz.com> wrote in message
> news:376d8519....@news.teleport.com...
> > "Gary Jensen" <tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a
> third
> > >lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from
a
> > >weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10
> trees,
> > >which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
> > >common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of
my
> > >lot).
> >
> > Before you speak to the neighbor, get a lawyer. Call any of these
> > Minnesota Attorney Referral Services:
> > MSBA Attorney Referral Service -- 800-292-4152
> > Hennepin County Bar Association Referral Service -- 612-339-8777
> > Ramsey County Bar Association Attorney Referral Service --
> > 651-224-1775
> >
> > Also, try the state attorney general or city attorney. Out here on
> > Oregon, poaching a tree is a crime. It may be the same in MN.
> >
> > Don't listen to the folks who say that you should just replant, and
> > try to make friends. The man knowingly stole and destroyed your
> > property. There is no excuse for this, and it should be treated in
> > the harshest possible way. Remember, you neighbor is smugly smiling,
> > knowing that he got exactly what he wanted, without respecting your
> > property rights.
> >
> > Ideally, you can sue him for damages, get a simple lien on his
> > property, and force him to sell it to pay you. Thus, you get monetary
> > compensation, and a neighbor who isn't a their.
> >
> > An attorney might take the case on contingency, or it might not be
> > terribly expensive to pursue.
> >
> > Go get 'em! And tell us how it works out.
> >
> > Good luck!
Brad Murray
> BradM...@SeeSigIfThere.com (Brad Murray) wrote:
> >> People need to be responsible for their actions, so that blind
> >> incompetence is not a defense. Imagine what our society would devolve
> >> to if the law held that it were.
> >
> >If people were responsible for their actions, most lawyers wouldn't have
> >jobs and the world would be a much nicer place.
>
> but in the real world, it is a good thing that we have laws that
> protect the rights of the innocent, and make wrongdoers and
> incompetents responsible. Don't blame the lawyers.
So I shouldn't blame people like Johnny Cochrane? I shouldn't blame
people like the dumb cunt that couldn't drink a cup of McDonald's coffee
while driving her car or her scum bag lawyer? Court is not about
protecting the innocent. If you believe that you're even more idiotic
than I originally thought.
Nathan addams
Hal Mounce
>
> Heres an update, to let everyone know where things stand at this point...
This is a very big deal out here in California. I got sucked into one
of these cases once. Had to testify, along with anyone else who ever
saw the (in my case 4) missing trees. They were all around 16 inches in
diameter.
Out here, there are lawyers who specialize in tree law, as well as
arborists (arborists are licensed out here) who consult in tree law
cases.
My two cents: If you're new neighbor couldn't bother to consult with
you first, and later ignored your note, you can't do much more than make
a mess out of things if you try to engage him further. Hire a lawyer,
let them handle things. Worst case, you'll spend a few hundred bucks on
a consultation to learn that there's nothing you can do. This will not
be the case.
An analogy: Every few years, I rip up my body somehow. Usually, I try
to fix it myself, but if the wound gets worse instead of better, I take
myself into the shop. It runs about $500 an hour for a doctor to fix
me, but then things start to get better instead of worse. You're trees
are gone, you tried to fix it and failed. Time to consult a
professional.
As there is for doctors, there's a book, at your library, called the
Marindale-Hubbell something or another, that rates lawyers. Dad's a
lawyer, he suggested I look in the book when I needed a lawyer once. The
book has rating information. There's an online version, at
http://www.martindale.com/. The online version doesn't seem to have the
peer ratings. It's probably worth a trip to the reference desk to get
them.
Regards,
Hal
Daniel Hicks
inquire about fence laws in your area.
Gary Jensen wrote:
>
> I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a third
> lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
> weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10 trees,
> which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
> common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
Gary Sanders
Bennet K. Langlotz <ne...@langlotz.com> wrote:
>BradM...@SeeSigIfThere.com (Brad Murray) wrote:
>
>>Propaganda that Bennet learned in law school aside (assuming he is even
>>telling the truth), you will not hurt anything by talking to the guy
>>first.
>
>Probably not, but maybe you will. (And should a person take legal
>advice from someone who considers law school education "propaganda"?)
>
>>Just find out
>>why he did it and why he didn't ask you. You may make a new friend.
>
>He is already a thief or an idiot. I prefer to find my friends with
>other characteristics..
What happen to due process? We only have one side of the stoy, if its his
property he is not a theif, Weather he is an idiot has nothing to do
with the issue. If the fence is more important to him than trees thats
his bussiness. I personally would take the trees if there healthy.
Tom Ruta
...
>I rechecked the survey markers along the line. ...
(Man, do I feel for you.... but that is not important).
Right now, I'd be sure to get a survey done to be sure the
property line is where it is. And you'd have third party
witness to the destroyed trees if they are in fact on your
property.
What ever happened to neighbourliness???
Tom
==============================================================
Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?
http://www.cottageliving.com
==============================================================
Benoit Evans
Gary Jensen wrote:
>
> I greatly appreciate all the advice everyone has provided since my posting
> yesterday. This is the first time I've posted a question to a newsgroup,
> and I have to say I'm impressed with all the valuable advice I've received.
> Heres an update, to let everyone know where things stand at this point...
> sorry for the length of this post, but there were lots of responses to my
> original post.
> [...]
I'm glad to see that you are going about this in a calm, logical way and
getting all the information you can. When you talk to the lawyer, you
may get one little surprise.
I forgot to mention this in my earlier post about chapter 344 (?)
Partition Fences in the Minnesota Revised Statutes. Your neighbour has
done everything bass ackwards, but he can force YOU to share with him
the cost of a partition fence. However, he cannot force you to accept
the kind of fence he plans to build. If you and the other neighbour and
the neanderthal cannot agree, the local "viewer" in your municipality
will decide what kind of fence must be built, when and how much your
share of the cost will be.
You will, however, be able to offset your share with some of the
dammages he has caused to you.
Try to act quickly so the fence part can be settled BEFORE he starts
building something that he might or might not be ordered to tear down.
Have you been able to talk to the third neighbour, who has also lost
trees? Perhaps you can work on this together.
Your tree-cutter sounds like a real gem. Good luck.
Regards,
Benoit Evans
Benoit Evans
Gary Sanders wrote:
>
> [...]
> If the fence is more important to him than trees thats
> his bussiness. I personally would take the trees if there healthy.
>
> --
> Gary W. Sanders g...@n8emr.cmhnet.org, 72277,1325
> N8EMR @ N8JYV Voice: 614-895-2552 (eves/weekends)
No, it's not entirely his business. As I pointed out in an earlier
message, in Minnestota (where this problem is), the construction,
upkeep, and assumption of costs for a partition fence is governed by
chapter 344 "Partition Fences" of the Minnesota Revised Statutes, 1999.
Under that statute, he can force his neighbour to share the costs of a
fence but he must consult with the neighbour BEFORE doing anything else.
If the two property owners are unable to agree on the kind of fence, the
cost sharing, compensation for necessary damages such as tree removal
along the property line, etc., a local official named in the statuted
for this pupose (called a "viewer") will act as an arbitrator and decide
what gets built, when, where and how much each pays.
Regards,
Benoits
Tkristo
>knock on the door,
Uh-oh. Hate to point this out, but a big dog ......
Jake
wrote:
>I rechecked the survey markers along the line. There's an old, old metal
>fence post, that has bars protruding downward to either side to mark the 90
>degree corner of the lot. That old marker is at one end of the 50 foot area
>where the trees were cut. At the base of the metal fence post is an
>official-looking survey marker... metal, with a plastic cap. Also at the
>base of the metal fence post is a wooden lath stake, which has a ribbon tied
>to it which reads "property line"... there is a matching wooden lath stake
>at the other end of the 50 foot tree-cutting area which also reads "property
>line". On the other side of that wooden lath stake, the neighbor has
>pounded in two-inch metal pipes, spaced about 8 feet apart... these pipes
>are obviously there for his new fence, and are along the property line he
>shares with another neighbor. It seems pretty obvious that the metal
>fencepost is the corner of the neighbors lot. The wooden lath stake at the
>other end of the 50 foot area is in line with the 2 inch piles, which is
>pretty strong evidence that the neighbor believes it's the property line.
>What throws me about this situation, is that he went ahead and cut down
>trees on my side of the line anyway!
If you want to be a jerk back with this guy, go move the markers/stakes back
10 feet towards his side of the property.
Maybe he'll notice it, maybe he won't. If he does, he'll have to repay a
surveyor.
>Bottom line is, I'm not that
>worried about getting this guy ticked off, and am willing to do whatever is
>necessary to receive compensation.
Well, it sure sounds like the law is on your side. You should have no problem
receiving compensation. You just may have to wait quite some time as the
courts are generally backed up with things like this.
>I'm kind of worried that the
>neighbor might show up with a stump-grinder, and then the evidence would be
>gone.
Take lots of photos and video if you can. Use a date/time on the video.
>Also, someone expressed concern that the neighbor may have sold the trees
>for profit. Nope... the trees are still laying on the ground, and he's cut
>them up into approximately 5 foot sections. My guess is that he's probably
>going to make a woodpile in that corner of the yard, and I'll get to look at
>that instead of my trees.
If they were your trees, pull the stumps well on to your property and put a no
trespassing / private property sign up in front of them. Why don't you just
use them for firewood yourself? Or, let him cut/split it there and you can
just go out to his/your pile whenever you want wood!
Brad Murray
says...
> "Gary Jensen" <tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> >I rechecked the survey markers along the line. ...
>
> (Man, do I feel for you.... but that is not important).
>
> Right now, I'd be sure to get a survey done to be sure the
> property line is where it is. And you'd have third party
> witness to the destroyed trees if they are in fact on your
> property.
>
> What ever happened to neighbourliness???
Everybody had to go and get lawyers.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>If you want to be a jerk back with this guy, go move the markers/stakes back
>10 feet towards his side of the property.
That would be a crime.
Jake
>no@mail (Jake) wrote:
>
>>If you want to be a jerk back with this guy, go move the markers/stakes back
>>10 feet towards his side of the property.
>
>That would be a crime.
Yea, sorta like cutting down trees that don't belong to you..... Where have
you been?
Bennet K. Langlotz
Moving surveying stakes, when one is already in the right, is a good
way to get into a heap of trouble. It is an incredibly stupid
suggestion.
It is difficult to pull out a 2-foot bar.
It is easy for a surveyor to detect movement of more than a few feet.
It is implicit who did the deed.
It will not win the sympathy of a judge in a property dispute.
It is harmful to the interests of society to have stable boundaries.
It will lead to a juicy fine.
Being in the right regarding tree cutting does not mean anything
regarding committing another crime.
Zevi Bareket
>
> What ever happened to neighbourliness???
>
For some reason, the following story comes to mind:
The fence between heaven and hell was getting old and falling apart. God
called Satan and said "listen, neighbour, the fence is a common
property, and it is falling apart. Now, I care about my tennants, so how
about us sharing the cost of fixing it?" Satan says "the hell with the
fence. I'm not going to put a dime into fixing it. You want it fixed --
you pay." After a long and heated argument, God gets upset, and he tells
Satan that he's going to take the matter to the highest authorities and
sue him.
With a devilish grin Satan says "where will you get a lawyer from?"...
Cheers,
Zevi Bareket
=======================================================
Zevi Bareket University of Michigan
e-mail: bar...@umich.edu
=======================================================
C. Brunner
<tru...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>I greatly appreciate all the advice everyone has provided since my posting
>yesterday....[snip]
>Heres an update, to let everyone know where things stand at this point...
>
>After discovering yesterday that the trees had been cut down, and that the
>neighbor was not home, I taped a note to his front door. The note explained
>that my family and I had been out of town for the weekend, and discovered
>our trees cut down when we returned. I asked him to contact me with an
>explanation, and gave him my home and work phone numbers. I also indicated
>that I would be home from work the following evening at 5:00 p.m. My wife
>was home with our kids all day today, and indicated that one of our kids had
>seen the homeowner in the afternoon... he has a big dog that barks when I
>knock on the door, so he probably needs to come home periodically to feed
>him. The note is gone from the front door, so he's apparently read it...
>even so, he still made no attempt to contact me during the day, and was not
>there when I got home at 5:00 pm. It's now after 9:00 pm, and he's still
>not home. I'm not sure what kind of person I'm dealing with, but the fact
>that he seems to be evading me is not a good sign...[snip]
He's probably trying desperately to get in touch with HIS lawyer!
C. Brunner
(Address contains a spamblock: "NOT")
Brad Murray
says...
> no@mail (Jake) wrote:
>
> >If you want to be a jerk back with this guy, go move the markers/stakes back
> >10 feet towards his side of the property.
>
> That would be a crime.
Yes, but it would also be taking the law into his own hands which he has
every right to do. He doesn't need a scum-sucking lawyer working for
him.
Tom Ruta
...
>> What ever happened to neighbourliness???
>
>Everybody had to go and get lawyers.
There's a sad truth to what you say. It seems to me that
most folks just don't talk anymore. These new house designs
don;t help.
Tom
==============================================================
Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?
Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store!
http://www.cottageliving.com
==============================================================
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Yes, but it would also be taking the law into his own hands which he has
>every right to do.
He may have the capability of acting so foolishly and naively against
his own self interest, but he doesn't have the "right" in any legal
sense.
> He doesn't need a scum-sucking lawyer working for
>him.
This sounds like the point of view of the tree-cutting neighbor, after
having to sell his house to pay off a $50,000 lien for a greedy and
stupid action.
Why do you oppose someone getting some simple advice as to his rights?
Does living in ignorance work better for you?
Would you prefer a system where private property rights were not
respected under the law?
Terry Greene
Brad Murray wrote:
> He doesn't need a scum-sucking lawyer working for him.
So, your ex-wife got everything huh...
Brad, you know that was totally uncalled for. Mr. Langlotz has been very
nice to offer free legal advice here. I haven't seen one thing that he's
posted that smelled of self interest. It's all sounded like quite
reasonable advice to me, assuming you want to stay out of jail and win
in court. From what I've seen I agree with him, and no I'm not a lawyer.
It's a new jungle my friend. Learn how to play the ropes and flourish in
it or perish. If you don't like the way things are, don't worry, things
will change yet again before you get comfortable with them. :-)
Terry
Brad Murray
says...
> BradM...@SeeSigIfThere.com (Brad Murray) wrote:
>
> >Yes, but it would also be taking the law into his own hands which he has
> >every right to do.
>
> He may have the capability of acting so foolishly and naively against
> his own self interest, but he doesn't have the "right" in any legal
> sense.
There are two ways for him to get back at the guy assuming the guy was
malicious. One is to get his own revenge. The other is to let a lawyer
do it for him. It's his choice.
> > He doesn't need a scum-sucking lawyer working for him.
>
> This sounds like the point of view of the tree-cutting neighbor, after
> having to sell his house to pay off a $50,000 lien for a greedy and
> stupid action.
>
> Why do you oppose someone getting some simple advice as to his rights?
> Does living in ignorance work better for you?
I didn't oppose it at all except as a first measure. As soon as people
bring lawyers into an argument nobody will end up happy. Just try to
settle it like human beings first.
> Would you prefer a system where private property rights were not
> respected under the law?
You seem to have forgotten about the guy being innocent until proven
guilty. The world does not revolve around courts as much as you lawyers
want it to. Give the guy a chance to speak his case. It seems as if he
took that advice and it didn't work out, so now he can go see a lawyer.
It was the grown-up thing to do.
three
My guess is that it may be advisable to hire your own surveyor ASAP, explain the
circumstances, and have him do a "property-line-dispute" survey, with an
accurate
survey map showing all the tree stumps accurately plotted, with locations and
diameters of all tree stumps, and have him certify/stamp the drawing.
Your stretching strings between posts and photographing things may be
nice, but when things get nasty (as I think they will), you want more than
amateur photos and your own say-so ... especially if the neighbor shows
up with a stump grinder.
Assuming they are on your property, you might ask your lawyer about the
advisability of your lawyer requesting a restraining order preventing your
neighbor from further alteration of the evidence.
If what you state is fact, and if it happened to me instead, for a travesty
that gross, I wouldn't even dream of an amicable neighborly-like
settlement - I would be setting the gears in motion for a court date.
If a neighbor of mine ever did this to me, and happened to have the
cutting professionally done, I'd go after both the homeowner and the
tree cutter.
As far as value, trees like this, that are 50 or more years old, and
formed your favorite backdrop, that you admired every morning to start
your day out right, are worth far more than their timber value - you
will never, again, in your lifetime see their majesty.
As far as top value, well, a 20" diameter tree cannot be transplanted.
There are some nurseries that have the capability of transplanting
medium-sized trees, at great cost, since it involves flatbed trailers,
front-end loaders, and cranes. Find out what the largest tree
they can successfully transplant is, and find out the cost. Then demand
as part of the settlement that the neighbor must either have "an equivalent
number" of these medium sized trees transplanted and guaranteed, plus
provide their care until they adapt to their new home.
One last thing - if you can establish beyond doubt that the survey
stakes were present when the trees were cut, and that a cursory
examination of the stakes would show that the trees were yours,
there may also be grounds for criminal prosecution.
PaulMmn
As for scum-sucking lawyers, some are actually rather civil.
Depending on the appraised value of his trees, he might be within
limits of small claims court, and not need a lawyer at all.
--Paul E Musselman
Pau...@ix.netcom.nospam.com
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:27:54 -0400, BradM...@SeeSigIfThere.com (Brad
Murray) wrote:
>In article <376fbae2...@news.teleport.com>, ne...@langlotz.com
>says...
>> no@mail (Jake) wrote:
>>
>> >If you want to be a jerk back with this guy, go move the markers/stakes back
>> >10 feet towards his side of the property.
>>
>> That would be a crime.
>
>Yes, but it would also be taking the law into his own hands which he has
>every right to do. He doesn't need a scum-sucking lawyer working for
>him.
Jeff Cochran
>>>10 feet towards his side of the property.
>>
>>That would be a crime.
>
>you been?
Cutting down the trees is defensible and probably only a civil matter.
Here in my jurisdiction (can't speak for his...) disturbing survey
markers is a misdemeanor and possibly a felony if done intentionally
and it causes harm.
Now a Molotov Cocktail into his garage is alos a crime, but far more
entertaining... :)
Jeff
(The opinions expressed do not connote any endorsement of any criminal
acts, no matter how entertaining they may seem at the time...)
Bennet K. Langlotz
>There's a sad truth to what you say. It seems to me that
>most folks just don't talk anymore. These new house designs
>don;t help.
If someone robbed your house, you wouldn't say "it's so sad that
people call the cops instead of trying to be friends" would you?
Bennet K. Langlotz
>There are two ways for him to get back at the guy assuming the guy was
>malicious. One is to get his own revenge. The other is to let a lawyer
>do it for him. It's his choice.
One get him just compensation, the other risks a serious fine and
criminal conviction. You can figure out which.
>I didn't oppose it at all except as a first measure.
Getting competent advice as to one's rights is a first measure too
rarely used.
>You seem to have forgotten about the guy being innocent until proven
>guilty.
This is not a criminal tribunal.
> The world does not revolve around courts as much as you lawyers
>want it to.
For a wronged party seeking justice, it is a good thing that the
courts do have the power you seem to resent.
Veruca
V.
In article <7km9nf$lr3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tshr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> One other course of action if the initial talks fizzle and you prefer
> to avoid legal recourse:
>
> Nature's revenge
>
> Plant a row of poplars or other fast-growing trees along the fence
> line, as close as possible. In a few years, he has a whole forest
> dropping leaves and seeds into his fenced backyard, and you have your
> trees back. Most people cut down trees because they don't like the work
> associated with them, or they want sun for pools/sun bathing etc.
> Replanting the trees would probably put a crimp in his style.
> You could also plant sweetgums, you know the trees with the spiked
> balls for seedpods. I don't know how fast they grow, but they're a real
> pain. Just remember you get what falls from the trees too.
>
> A faster growing option would be an aggressive vine like honeysuckle
> (don't know how well it does in Minnesota). Plant it along the base of
> the fence and in three years it would completely cover it, including
> his side.
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jaek
neighbor's property too.
An eye for an eye. If you don't like it, don't take my trees down and you
won't have a problem.
Now, let me poke holes in your arguments.....
>Moving surveying stakes, when one is already in the right, is a good
>way to get into a heap of trouble. It is an incredibly stupid
>suggestion.
>
>It is difficult to pull out a 2-foot bar.
Who's talking about a 2 foot pole? I'm talking about a 1' wooden steak that's
probably less than 3" in the dirt and was put there BY the surveyors. Once
you move it, it's very unlikely that the homeowner will notice it and will
build his fence accordingly.
>It is easy for a surveyor to detect movement of more than a few feet.
Irrelevant. The surveyor was already there and put the steaks out. He won't
be back unless the homeowner calls him back. Unlikely.
>It is implicit who did the deed.
Prove it in court. I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty. You can't do it.
>It will not win the sympathy of a judge in a property dispute.
Irrelevant. I don't need "sympathy" as I can't be PROVEN guilty.
>It is harmful to the interests of society to have stable boundaries.
Wrong. It's harmful to MY property to have an asshole neighbor who cut down
my trees.
>It will lead to a juicy fine.
Nope. You can't PROVE I did anything.
>Being in the right regarding tree cutting does not mean anything
>regarding committing another crime.
2 words. Tough shit.
Jaek
Tom Ruta
>ru...@cadvision.com (Tom Ruta) wrote:
>
>>There's a sad truth to what you say. It seems to me that
>>most folks just don't talk anymore. These new house designs
>>don;t help.
>
>If someone robbed your house, you wouldn't say "it's so sad that
>people call the cops instead of trying to be friends" would you?
Lest you think I'm taking a shot at lawyers, I was
referring to talking in the first place. IIRC these two
litigants haven't even met, have they?
Touchy, are we??
Tom
==============================================================
Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?
http://www.cottageliving.com
==============================================================
Michele Mauro
growing in the middle of his living room! :-)
Bamboo is very invasive, roots can travel quite a distance, and once
planted, extremely difficult (if dern near impossible) to get rid of.
Have fun, Michele
--
Change NOSPAM to 'chaos' to reply via email.
Jaek <no@mail> wrote in message
news:3774bdf9...@enews.newsguy.com...
rric...@lanminds.com
>>It is difficult to pull out a 2-foot bar.
>
>Who's talking about a 2 foot pole? I'm talking about a 1' wooden steak that's
>probably less than 3" in the dirt and was put there BY the surveyors. Once
>you move it, it's very unlikely that the homeowner will notice it and will
>build his fence accordingly.
>
I find it hard to picture someone going out to build a fence and NOT
noticing that the boundary stakes are now a lot further from the tree
stumps left from cutting down a bunch of trees! And yes, the first
thing I would do would be suspect the neighbor on that side of moving
them, and I would either build the fence where they HAD been, or else
bring out the surveyor again. People aren't idiots, you know.
Rebecca
Remove "not" when replying by email
Brad Murray
says...
> ru...@cadvision.com (Tom Ruta) wrote:
>
> >There's a sad truth to what you say. It seems to me that
> >most folks just don't talk anymore. These new house designs
> >don;t help.
>
> If someone robbed your house, you wouldn't say "it's so sad that
> people call the cops instead of trying to be friends" would you?
And this has what to do with the case at hand?
Brad Murray
says...
Uh, yes they are. Have you ever watched a daytime talk show?
art james
as much to do with it as any of this thread has to do with "home
repair"?
--
Note: I have no financial interest in any product and/or otherwise that
I may recommend. Good luck
aj
Phil Anderson
Jaek <no@mail> wrote in message news:3773bc51...@enews.newsguy.com...
[snip]
> >Moving surveying stakes, when one is already in the right, is a good
> >way to get into a heap of trouble. It is an incredibly stupid
> >suggestion.
> >It is implicit who did the deed.
>
> Prove it in court. I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty. You can't do it.
>
> >It will not win the sympathy of a judge in a property dispute.
>
> Irrelevant. I don't need "sympathy" as I can't be PROVEN guilty.
>
> >It is harmful to the interests of society to have stable boundaries.
>
> Wrong. It's harmful to MY property to have an asshole neighbor who cut
down
> my trees.
>
> >It will lead to a juicy fine.
>
> Nope. You can't PROVE I did anything.
Proving the stakes were moved would be a gimme. The surveryor could testify
where the stake started and where it wound up. Proving you did it involves
our old pal circumstantial evidence. First, you are the only one who would
benefit from such a move, since the sole effect would be to make your lot
larger at your neighbor's expense.
Second, given the nature of the stake, it is clear you have the physical
capacity to move it.
So far, we have means and motive.
Finally, your post quoted above makes it clear that you've given real
thought to moving the stake.
Put all those things together in evidence, and you clearly have a case which
would make it to a jury. Once it gets there, it could well decide you did
what you have all but threatened to do.
But go ahead and do it. The gene pool would not miss you if you were sent
away for a month or two.
Phil
Bennet K. Langlotz
>> If someone robbed your house, you wouldn't say "it's so sad that
>> people call the cops instead of trying to be friends" would you?
>
>And this has what to do with the case at hand?
It was simply to illustrate the absurdity of your earlier statement:
"Everybody had to go and get lawyers."
Terry Greene
> If you want to be a jerk back with this guy, go move the markers/stakes back
> 10 feet towards his side of the property.
>
> Maybe he'll notice it, maybe he won't. If he does, he'll have to repay a
> surveyor.
>
No,no,no. You guys just aren't sneaky enough. I would never mess with
the stakes as I would have him eaten alive in court and wouldn't
jeopardize my legal position, reputation or a criminal record. BUT....
If someone were going to do this, the thing to do would be move the
stakes about 6 inches or a foot onto YOUR property and carefully cover
the holes they came from. Slim chance he will notice this. Then let him
build his fence. After he's all done, you call a surveyor to reset the
boundaries and make him tear it down, or perhaps just let him find it
dozed and burning in a pile when he comes home. Make sure you've got all
the legal work done first so he can't sue you for pulling down his
fence. Heck it might be more fun to make him pull it down, but he can
move it and put it back up. If you pull it down and destroy it or haul
it off, he'll have to buy more. :-)
Terry
Truc Nguyen
Bamboo is a better suggestion here. It grows fast, tough, spread out quickly
creates a natural fence, and a pain it a b.tt to eradicate them.
Truc
Penny Sowers
eye side of the fence must face you. Ted.
Gary Jensen <tru...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:7kjsl3$3u$1...@shadow.skypoint.net...
> I live in Maplewood, Minnesota, a suburb of St. Paul, on an acre and a
third
> lot, appraised about approximately $89,000. I just returned home from a
> weekend vacation, and discovered that one of my neighbors cut down 10
trees,
> which are on or near the property line in my backyard (our lots have a
> common property line that runs for about 50 feet in the back corner of my
any
> contact with him to date, because the trees that had been there obstructed
> the view between our lots. Now, not only do I have a gaping hole looking
> into his back yard, but I've got a big gap in my previously tree-lined
back
> yard... some of these trees had trunks measuring 20" across. I haven't
> spoken with the neighbor yet because he's evidently away for the weekend,
> but he evidently had his lot surveyed, bacause there are stakes with red
> flags that are marked "property line". He's also started placing some
> fenceposts, and it's obvious that he's fencing his entire backyard,
directly
> on the property line. Based on the imaginary line between the stakes,
some
> of the trees are obviously on my side of the line, and some of them are
> directly on the line. I'm shocked that anyone would cut this many trees
> down on a property line without consulting their neighbor, and I'm very
> upset, to say the least.
>
> Can anyone tell me what legal recourse I have? In building a fence, does
a
> neighbor have a right to cut down trees to allow him to put the fence
> directly on the line? Can the fence be built directly on the line, or is
> there some setback required?
>
> Thanks, Gary
>
>
Terry Greene
camcorder and a tape,... Americas Funniest Home Videos is waiting... ;-)
Terry
Lance Hill wrote:
>
> OK Terry, how's this for sneaky. Don't remove the stakes. Buy about
> 10-20 times the number of stakes that are in the ground now along with
> the "Property Line" ribbons. While the neighbor's gone, randomly set the
> stakes all over the place so no one can tell the new stakes from the old
> ones. Heck, maybe even set a few in a straight line right through the
> middle of jerk's house.
>
> Lance
Lance Hill
10-20 times the number of stakes that are in the ground now along with
the "Property Line" ribbons. While the neighbor's gone, randomly set the
stakes all over the place so no one can tell the new stakes from the old
ones. Heck, maybe even set a few in a straight line right through the
middle of jerk's house.
Lance
Terry Greene <xr...@cstel.net> wrote...
Turnkey
rric...@lanminds.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:56:42 GMT, no@mail (Jaek) wrote:
>
> >>It is difficult to pull out a 2-foot bar.
> >
> >Who's talking about a 2 foot pole? I'm talking about a 1' wooden steak that's
> >probably less than 3" in the dirt and was put there BY the surveyors. Once
> >you move it, it's very unlikely that the homeowner will notice it and will
> >build his fence accordingly.
> >
> I find it hard to picture someone going out to build a fence and NOT
> noticing that the boundary stakes are now a lot further from the tree
> stumps left from cutting down a bunch of trees! And yes, the first
> thing I would do would be suspect the neighbor on that side of moving
> them, and I would either build the fence where they HAD been, or else
> bring out the surveyor again. People aren't idiots, you know.
>
> Remove "not" when replying by email
>
-- were it to happen to me, I would first call the cops to have him arrested.
Moving a survey stake is felony in this state. The fact is that the guy
cutting the trees down is clearly in the wrong but retaliating by committing
a crime is plain stupid. -- Harry K
--
Fighting the battle from the trenches
Jim
>On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:56:42 GMT, no@mail (Jaek) wrote:
>
>
>>>It is difficult to pull out a 2-foot bar.
>>
>>Who's talking about a 2 foot pole? I'm talking about a 1' wooden steak that's
>>probably less than 3" in the dirt and was put there BY the surveyors. Once
>>you move it, it's very unlikely that the homeowner will notice it and will
>>build his fence accordingly.
>>
>People aren't idiots, you know.
Uh, I think we all know that this guy's neighbor IS an idiot. To the
millionth degree.
Jake
wrote:
>
>Jaek <no@mail> wrote in message news:3773bc51...@enews.newsguy.com...
>[snip]
>> >Moving surveying stakes, when one is already in the right, is a good
>> >way to get into a heap of trouble. It is an incredibly stupid
>> >suggestion.
>[snip]
>> >It is implicit who did the deed.
>>
>> Prove it in court. I'm innocent until PROVEN guilty. You can't do it.
>>
>> >It will not win the sympathy of a judge in a property dispute.
>>
>> Irrelevant. I don't need "sympathy" as I can't be PROVEN guilty.
>>
>> >It is harmful to the interests of society to have stable boundaries.
>>
>> Wrong. It's harmful to MY property to have an asshole neighbor who cut
>down
>> my trees.
>>
>> >It will lead to a juicy fine.
>>
>> Nope. You can't PROVE I did anything.
>[snip]
>Proving the stakes were moved would be a gimme. The surveryor could testify
>where the stake started and where it wound up. Proving you did it involves
>our old pal circumstantial evidence.
Thank you for clearly demonstrating that you don't have an ounce of a clue
about "circumstantial evidence".
This is a foolish and embarrassing statement on your behalf.
Jake
>Jake wrote:
>
>> If you want to be a jerk back with this guy, go move the markers/stakes back
>> 10 feet towards his side of the property.
>>
>> Maybe he'll notice it, maybe he won't. If he does, he'll have to repay a
>> surveyor.
>>
>
>No,no,no. You guys just aren't sneaky enough. I would never mess with
>the stakes as I would have him eaten alive in court and wouldn't
>jeopardize my legal position, reputation or a criminal record. BUT....
>
>If someone were going to do this, the thing to do would be move the
>stakes about 6 inches or a foot onto YOUR property and carefully cover
>the holes they came from. Slim chance he will notice this. Then let him
>build his fence. After he's all done, you call a surveyor to reset the
>boundaries and make him tear it down, or perhaps just let him find it
>dozed and burning in a pile when he comes home. Make sure you've got all
>the legal work done first so he can't sue you for pulling down his
>fence. Heck it might be more fun to make him pull it down, but he can
>move it and put it back up. If you pull it down and destroy it or haul
>it off, he'll have to buy more. :-)
You're right. This idea is MUCH better !!
James Penrose
: One other course of action if the initial talks fizzle and you prefer
: to avoid legal recourse:
: Nature's revenge
: Plant a row of poplars or other fast-growing trees along the fence
: line, as close as possible. In a few years, he has a whole forest
: dropping leaves and seeds into his fenced backyard, and you have your
: trees back. Most people cut down trees because they don't like the work
: associated with them, or they want sun for pools/sun bathing etc.
: Replanting the trees would probably put a crimp in his style.
: You could also plant sweetgums, you know the trees with the spiked
: balls for seedpods. I don't know how fast they grow, but they're a real
: pain. Just remember you get what falls from the trees too.
k
Hmm, apparently Robert frost blew it when he said "good fences make
good neighbors." :)
"Mending Fences" - Collected Poems of Robert Frost
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Hmm, apparently Robert frost blew it when he said "good fences make
>good neighbors." :)
Perhaps the poet was placing emphasis on "GOOD fences". The poem
revolved around the process of shared effort to build a fence.
Phil Anderson
Turnkey <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ktbeb$5kh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
> -- were it to happen to me, I would first call the cops to have him
arrested.
> Moving a survey stake is felony in this state. The fact is that the guy
> cutting the trees down is clearly in the wrong but retaliating by
committing
> a crime is plain stupid. -- Harry K
I agree. However, in reviewing the recent notes in this string I've
concluded that the guy who got his trees cut down and the guy who says he
will retaliate in felonious fashion are probably two different people.
Didn't figure this out until I posted a reply to his troll as well, but so
it goes.
Phil
Phil Anderson
circumstantial evidence I'd rely upon, then tell me I don't have an "ounce
of a clue" about circumstantial evidence.
With a hack editing job such as yours, you are in no position to challenge
anyone's "clues" about anything.
I suggest you give up this argument and go put your skills at ignoring the
bulk of one's argument to good use. Call Rush, he lives for folks with
minds like yours.
Jake <no@mail> wrote in message news:37795f47...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:48:28 -0500, "Phil Anderson"
<philan...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jaek <no@mail> wrote in message
news:3773bc51...@enews.newsguy.com...
> >[snip]
> >> >Moving surveying stakes, when one is already in the right, is a good
> >> >way to get into a heap of trouble. It is an incredibly stupid
> >> >suggestion.
> >[snip]
[another snip, to get this past my news servers posting rules]
Terry Greene
that advertise on Rush's show? It's because the demographics clearly
show that his audience is, on average, well above average in income.
Those people don't get there by being stupid. The ability to discern the
difference between the bull that gets shoveled onto your shoes and
reality is actually an asset.
Terry
"Bennet K. Langlotz" wrote:
>
> "Phil Anderson" <philan...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Call Rush, he lives for folks with
> >minds like yours.
>
> Give Rush a break. Some pretty smart people listen to Rush. Let's
> not go there.
Bennet K. Langlotz
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Agreed. You know why there are so many big name high dollar enterprises
>that advertise on Rush's show? It's because the demographics clearly
>show that his audience is, on average, well above average in income.
>Those people don't get there by being stupid. The ability to discern the
>difference between the bull that gets shoveled onto your shoes and
>reality is actually an asset.
I first heard Rush on the radio about a year ago. I wondered, who is
this announcer so knowledgable about legal and constitutional issues
(I'm a lawyer). Surprise, it's Rush, who is quite different now than
I recall 12 years ago with his silly TV show.
He may be very partisan, but he ain't stupid, and offers more detailed
analysis of legal/political issues than can be found most anywhere
else, including NPR.
Of course, GG Liddy is much more entertaining! What a character!
Tom Ruta
...
>Hmm, apparently Robert frost blew it when he said "good fences make
>good neighbors." :)
On one side of our property we have a 10 foot carragana
hedge. Best fence going - never needs painting!
Tom
==============================================================
Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?
Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store!
http://www.cottageliving.com
==============================================================
Tkristo
posting?
Thanks.
Sean Smith
>As far as value, trees like this, that are 50 or more years old, and
>formed your favorite backdrop, that you admired every morning to start
>your day out right, are worth far more than their timber value - you
>will never, again, in your lifetime see their majesty.
>As far as top value, well, a 20" diameter tree cannot be transplanted.
>There are some nurseries that have the capability of transplanting
>medium-sized trees, at great cost, since it involves flatbed trailers,
>front-end loaders, and cranes. Find out what the largest tree
>they can successfully transplant is, and find out the cost. Then demand
>as part of the settlement that the neighbor must either have "an equivalent
>number" of these medium sized trees transplanted and guaranteed, plus
>provide their care until they adapt to their new home.
Trees of a decently large size can be transplanted but they are VERY
expensive. Friend of mine does landscaping and they recently transplanted a
few trees (I think it was three of them) about 30' tall. They cost about
$38,000 each. While they aren't the 20" monsters, they certainly are mature
trees.
With the 6 trees that were cut down, 4 of them were mature enough to be
about that price each, and two of them about half that size/price...works out
to be a lot of cash that guy will have to cough up...approximately
$190,000...oy!
Sean
Turnkey
That would be Gary Jensen. Unfortunately I didn't keep his addy.