Eleanor Finch
Trees and fences are common sources of disputes between neighbors in California. In the state, trees are a beloved part of the landscape and are therefore more strictly protected than in some other states. This has resulted in several legal cases, including Wilson v. Handley and Vanderpol v. Starr, which have set precedents for how trees can be considered in relation to fences and the law.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Can plants or trees constitute a fence in California? | Yes, a row of trees can be considered a fence. |
| Purpose of the fence | To annoy the owner or occupant of adjoining property |
| Height of the fence | Unnecessarily exceeding 10 feet |
| What constitutes a fence? | A structure erected to separate two contiguous estates or a barrier intended to mark a boundary |
| What to do if the fence is causing a nuisance? | The owner or occupant of adjoining property can enforce remedies against its continuance as prescribed by law |
| Trimming trees | You can trim branches and roots back to the limit of your property line or fence. |
| Tree ownership | If the trunk of a tree stands wholly on the land of one landowner, that landowner owns the tree. If the trunk stands partly on the land of two adjoining landowners, both landowners own the tree. |
| Damaging a tree | Damaging a tree on your neighbour's property can lead to civil and criminal penalties. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Rows of trees can be considered fences
In the case of Vanderpol v. Starr, the plaintiffs purchased a home with an ocean view. The neighbouring property had a row of eucalyptus trees dividing the properties, but the trees did not block the plaintiffs' view. The neighbours had a tree-trimming arrangement that worked for many years, until the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to trim the trees and planted additional pine and cypress trees, ostensibly for privacy reasons. The Vanderpols sued, arguing that the row of trees constituted a "spite fence". The court ruled in their favour, awarding them $57,000 for their loss in property value. The judgement also restricted the neighbours from maintaining their trees at a height above fifteen feet, nine inches.
The Vanderpol ruling confirmed a previous decision in Wilson v. Handley, where the Court found that a row of trees could be considered a fence. In this case, the plaintiffs were concerned that a row of evergreen trees planted by the defendants would block the property's view of Mount Shasta. The Court noted the definition of a fence as a "structure erected to separate two contiguous estates" or a "barrier intended to mark a boundary". As a result, they concluded that a row of trees planted or maintained near a boundary line could be considered a "structure in the nature of a fence".
It is important to note that California law presumes that both adjacent landowners benefit equally from a boundary fence and are therefore equally responsible for the reasonable costs of construction and maintenance. Additionally, California law allows you to sue your neighbour if they build a "spite fence", which can be made out of wood, cinder blocks, bushes, or other materials, that is at least 10 feet high, with the intent to annoy you.
In summary, rows of trees can be considered fences in California, specifically in the context of spite fence laws, where they are planted or maintained near a boundary line with the intent to annoy the neighbouring homeowner.
Founding Fathers' Intentions: Constitution's Interpretive Nature
You may want to see also
Trees are protected in California
Trees are an integral part of California's landscape and environment, and the state has taken steps to legally protect them. This protection is important given the widespread deforestation that has occurred in the state due to the lumber and real estate industries, which has significantly reduced the number of trees, particularly oaks, which are native to California.
California's Civil Code Sections 833 and 834 address tree ownership and establish that if the trunk of a tree stands on one landowner's property, they own the tree, even if its branches or roots extend onto another's land. However, if the trunk stands on the land of two adjoining landowners, they both own the tree. This code also clarifies that a row of trees planted or maintained near a boundary line can be considered a "structure in the nature of a fence" and thus a spite fence if it exceeds 10 feet in height and is intended to annoy a neighbour.
Additionally, California has specific laws in place regarding the removal and pruning of trees. For instance, the city of Pacific Grove has outlined five categories of protected trees, including native trees like the Gowen cypress and Coast live oak, and all other private trees with a trunk diameter of 12 inches or greater. The city also encourages reporting on the removal of non-protected trees to monitor changes in canopy coverage and strives to achieve a 25-year citywide canopy cover target of 33%.
Furthermore, tree pruning and removal activities must consider the nesting periods of threatened, endangered, or special status species. Upon discovering large nests, property owners and contractors must consult with an arborist or qualified biologist to ensure wildlife protection measures are followed. The criteria for substantial pruning or removal of protected trees include a high or extreme tree risk assessment level and the absence of more cost-effective remedial solutions.
Overall, these laws and guidelines demonstrate California's commitment to protecting its tree canopy and the environment, ensuring that trees are preserved and managed responsibly.
When to Capitalize 'Constitutional' as an Adjective: A Guide
You may want to see also
Trimming trees on your property
Ownership of the Tree
Firstly, it is important to establish ownership of the tree. According to California Civil Code Section 833, if the trunk of a tree stands wholly on your land, you own the tree, even if its branches or roots extend onto a neighbour's property. However, if the trunk stands partly on your land and partly on your neighbour's land, then both of you own the tree.
Neighbour Disputes
If you are considering trimming branches or roots that extend onto a neighbour's property, it is essential to communicate with them first. They may be attached to the tree and open to a discussion about maintenance. If they refuse to cooperate, you can send them a demand letter, respectfully setting out your intentions and explaining how the tree is impacting your property. You may need to send multiple letters if they remain uncooperative.
Legal Consequences
Trimming a tree that extends onto your neighbour's property can have legal consequences. You could be liable for damages if you trim or cut down a tree without the owner's permission, and this could result in civil or even criminal penalties. Before taking any action, it is crucial to understand your rights and responsibilities under California law.
Nuisance Lawsuits
If your neighbour's tree is causing a nuisance, such as damaging your property or blocking sunlight to your solar panels, you may have a case for a nuisance lawsuit. However, it is important to weigh the nuisance effect on you against the potential damage to the tree owner. Courts will typically apply a "reasonableness" test to determine if the trimming was reasonable and necessary.
City Involvement
If the tree is on city property or endangers city property, the city may get involved. They routinely prune and cut back trees on city property or those that pose a threat to it. Contact your local city hall to determine if the tree in question falls under their jurisdiction.
Documentation and Evidence
Before trimming any trees, it is essential to gather evidence and documentation. Take pictures and videos of the trees before and after trimming. Keep any relevant emails, notices, or responses from your homeowners' association (HOA) or other involved parties. Visual evidence is crucial if the issue escalates and makes its way to the news or courtroom.
In conclusion, trimming trees on your property in California requires careful consideration of the law, your rights, and potential consequences. Open communication with your neighbours and respect for their attachment to the tree can help resolve disputes amicably. Remember to consult an attorney for specific legal advice pertaining to your unique situation.
The Secretary of the Department of Justice: A Key Role
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trees causing property damage
Trees are a beloved part of California's landscape and are protected by the state. However, they can cause property damage, leading to disputes between neighbours.
Who Owns the Tree?
The owner of a tree is the person upon whose land the trunk stands. If the trunk stands on the land of one landowner, they own the tree, even if the branches or roots extend onto another's property. If the trunk stands on two adjoining lands, both landowners own the tree.
Encroachment
If branches from a neighbour's tree hang over your property, you have the right to remove them. You can sue for damages if the branches cause harm to your property, a person, or an animal. However, you cannot sue for nuisance due to encroachment. Some cities have laws protecting certain tree types, which may override a homeowner's right to remove encroaching branches.
Roots
A homeowner may cut back roots to their property line, but only if the roots are causing damage, such as cracks in a hardscape or pool. If a homeowner cuts the roots of a neighbour's tree, and that tree is damaged, the court will conduct a 'balancing test' to assess whether the homeowner acted reasonably.
Fallen Trees and Branches
If a tree or branch falls and causes damage, the responsibility for the cost of repairs depends on several factors, including the tree's location, condition, and the insurance coverage of the affected party. If the tree was healthy and well-maintained, the damage was likely out of the owner's control, and a standard insurance policy will cover it. If the tree was on another's property, their insurer may reimburse the affected party and refund their deductible. If the tree was unhealthy, the affected party may be able to claim reimbursement from the tree owner's insurance, but negligence can be challenging to prove.
Spite Fences
A row of trees can be considered a 'spite fence' if planted or maintained near a boundary line with the intent to annoy a neighbour. In such cases, the affected neighbour may sue for damages.
The Constitution's Ink: A Historical Mystery Unveiled
You may want to see also
Trees as a nuisance
Trees can be a nuisance in California if they encroach on a neighbour's property or cause damage. In California, trees are a beloved part of the landscape and are therefore more strictly protected than in some states. However, this can cause issues between neighbours.
Ownership
According to California Civil Code Section 833, if the trunk of a tree stands on one landowner's property, that landowner owns the tree, even if its roots, foliage, or branches extend onto another property. If the trunk stands on the boundary between two properties, both landowners own the tree.
Encroachment
If a tree's branches or roots encroach on a neighbour's property, the neighbour may abate the nuisance by trimming the overhanging foliage, branches, and limbs. They must act reasonably so as not to seriously injure or kill the tree. If a landowner cuts foliage that is not encroaching onto their property without the permission of the tree's owner, they may be liable to the adjoining landowner for up to triple the amount of the damage caused.
Damage
A tree owner must maintain their trees to avoid injury to a neighbour's property. A tree owner can be held liable for damage caused by falling branches and/or invasive roots. A neighbour can remove encroaching portions of a tree if doing so is reasonable under the circumstances. They can only cut back the tree to their property's boundary line.
View
Trees generally cannot be removed because they block a view. California does not have "view easements" unless specifically granted.
Height
In California, a "spite fence" is defined as any fence or structure in the nature of a fence that exceeds 10 feet in height and is maliciously erected or maintained to annoy the owner or occupant of adjoining property. A row of trees can be considered a spite fence and thus a private nuisance.
Other Issues
Trees can cause other issues, such as debris, which can be considered a nuisance if it interferes with a neighbour's comfortable enjoyment of their property. High winds can cause tree limbs to fall and can even pull entire trees out of the ground, leading to fears of damage to homes.
Cuomo's Stance on Constitutional Referendum: Support or Oppose?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, in every state, a common-law right exists that allows a property owner to cut the branches and roots of a neighbouring tree that is invading their property. However, you can only trim branches and roots back to the limit of your property line or fence. You may not cut down the tree, and you need permission to enter the tree owner's property. You are also responsible for the payment.
Yes, according to the Vanderpol v. Starr case, a row of trees will be characterised as a fence for the purposes of section 841.4. Therefore, if your neighbour has planted a row of trees with the intent to annoy you, their conduct can be abated and you can sue for damages.
A "spite fence" is any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence that unnecessarily exceeds 10 feet in height, is maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupant of adjoining property, and is deemed a private nuisance.
