Boundary Tree Agreement

He bought the house knowing that these trees had been there for a long time, with the agreement of us and the previous owner (planted on our side by the previous owner, so not really our choice, but we were happy). Last summer we looked at the boundaries of the property with the new neighbors, so they certainly knew the trees were on our side. Contact the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for advice on resolving border disagreements. Hi, Lynne. The first thing I would do is contact your community and make sure that your neighbor respects all the statutes that may exist when it comes to tree planting. Good luck. A few thoughts. When a tree becomes unhealthy, there are several remedies – not all of them need to cut down the tree. If an owner believes that the border tree is «terminally ill» or «imminent danger», urban Forestry should confirm this. I suggest you check these two websites for information about it: now the trees have no flowers, so no apples on the lower branches, and I couldn`t reach the top of the tree for apples anyway.

I expressed my misfortune to have entered the trees on our side and changed them. I won`t have a chance to make apple juice, at least this year. He is certainly not an arborist, so I wonder if the cut was done safely. He said that in fact, he will then cut down all the thick limbs and awnings that extend beyond the property line – and said he knew he was going to damage or kill the trees. He prefers that the trees are gone. This would be about 1/3 of the canopy and would make the trees completely inclined. If you add the circumcision he has already done, it would remove more than 1/3 of the entire awning. The parties had never agreed that the tree would mark their boundary – and this was important to the court The damage caused by the tree is an interesting comparison with the 2007 Virginia decision in Fancher v. Fagella on assault and harassment. The flat root system of the tree made inapplicable remedies that did not need to be removed, and the roots seemed to work almost everywhere. The case is a great example of how the facts of each growth can influence a court`s decision. Holmberg, Bergin, 285 minn.

250, 172 N.W.2d 739 (Sup.Ct. Minn. 1969). The Bergins and Holmbergs were landowners adjacent to Minneapolis. In 1942, the Bergins planted an elm tree on their property about 15 inches north of the border, and they have maintained the tree and since then exercised exclusive control of it. The Holmbergs bought their place 10 years later and built a wire fence on their land 4 inches south of the common border. When the fence was completed, the tree was 6 inches and 2 inches from the border, so the tree did not touch or disturb the fence. What I want to make clear is my responsibility as a co-owner of a border tree.

Sin categoría