On the Fence

flyingsquirrel25

flyingsquirrel25

Carpal tunnel level member
Location
South East, PA
Well I've been thinking lately about building contractors complete disregard for trees and tree health.

I went to look at a clients trees a couple weeks ago (had nothing to do with a new fence he had installed). First two trees great, couple mid size hangers and a few dead limbs. Heck they are black locust that's normal. Third tree is a small dogwood right on the outside of the fence 8 or so inches diameter. The fence was awful close so I leaned over to look
IMG_0102.webp IMG_0103.webp
New technique I guess.
This ended our inspection of all the trees because the owner got really upset and wanted to check all the fence line trees. 4 trees in all
30"+ black locust with heavy lean toward neighbors house away from the notch.
IMG_0104.webp

Small cut in root flare 25" pretty straight tree.
IMG_0108.webp
And the best of all, same size class same type of cut but looks to be completely through the root and the tree has moved. Luckily it's outa range of the house but not of other trees that can reach.
IMG_0105.webp

Been back twice since to provide additional information to the client.
Funny thing is the fencing company stopped out this week and said "we do this all the time they will be fine!" And started saying the homeowner wouldn't have liked it if they had moved the fence... They didn't even give them the option, because they were home!
 
Unfortunately it's all about collecting a check. The almighty dollar. I see it everywhere and in every trade. Trees often get amputations just because they happened to grow in the "wrong place." I often see builders slap up developments leaving a tree here and there in the residents yard only to bury the root system from grading. Couple years go by and the tree no longer has any life left. Fence company's, landscapers, construction crews, ..... to them it's just a tree. I often which there was a way to educate the common home owner. Not just it arbor culture, but all trades. I kinda gave up on that a long time ago. You can lead a horse to water but .....

Usually the only clients that listen and absorb are the ones that have already been had.
 
So, despite a wealth of knowledge and information out there these business owners don't change their work practices? Wow…. that they'll just keep doing what will make them money isn't any surprise. How many have changed their business practices unless it made them more and even then it still has to fit with their perspective.

It is the rare person who will change if it means they will somehow have to do more or not make as much in the short term.
 
FS,

Please keep us posted if the story continues.

How has your client received your input? Do they realize the loss that they've suffered from the fencers? It
seems like a pretty good base for a lawsuit.

Homeowners doing work like that is pardonable...sorta. But when a professional does i there is a differnt standard that they have to meet. Its a professionals responsibility to know what they are doing.

We can't just 'hope' that the trees live...hehehehe
 
Holy crap. That's unconscionable and shows an utter disregard for acceptable business practices, proper fence building or the consequences of gross negligence.

Truly unbelievable.
 
Tom Dunlap said:
FS,

Please keep us posted if the story continues.

How has your client received your input? Do they realize the loss that they've suffered from the fencers? It
seems like a pretty good base for a lawsuit.

Homeowners doing work like that is pardonable...sorta. But when a professional does i there is a differnt standard that they have to meet. Its a professionals responsibility to know what they are doing.

We can't just 'hope' that the trees live...hehehehe
Click to expand...

Tom, I'll keep you all up to date as I can. The fence contractor wants a second opinion about the prognosis of the trees. I guess he doesn't believe the damage that has been done. So we are working with another CA in the area to get that report done.
From the sounds of it the HO will need to go to court to get this taken care of. The guy doesn't want to call his ins company. And of course no COI before beginning the job. Hoping they get the ins info and I told them just call yourself, if he won't.
 
I'm in disbelief.

Solely for the sake of discussion:

What is the difference between property line branches and property line roots, from the standpoint of ownership and one's right to cut them?

Isn't the original error that the trees were originally planted (or let to grow) too close to the property line? Isn't that negligent? Sure, the current owner may not be to blame, but isn't the agency of that property assumed by the next owners?
 
colb said:
I'm in disbelief.
Solely for the sake of discussion:
What is the difference between property line branches and property line roots, from the standpoint of ownership and one's right to cut them?
Click to expand...
My understanding is it's the same rules apply. The good thing is that the trees all belong to my clients, which is also disturbing because the fence had plenty of room to adjust.

colb said:
I'm in disbelief.
Isn't the original error that the trees were originally planted (or let to grow) too close to the property line? Isn't that negligent? Sure, the current owner may not be to blame, but isn't the agency of that property assumed by the next owners?
Click to expand...

I normally don't have an issue with trees growing on the property line (twice so far this year), and wouldn't consider them being allowed to grow as an error (I think you are kidding though). In this case though the mistake would have been where the original property was subdivided.

I will have a property line dispute to look at after the survey is complete on another property. One neighbor clear cut the line while the other was away at work.
 
colb said:
I'm in disbelief.

Solely for the sake of discussion:

What is the difference between property line branches and property line roots, from the standpoint of ownership and one's right to cut them?

Isn't the original error that the trees were originally planted (or let to grow) too close to the property line? Isn't that negligent? Sure, the current owner may not be to blame, but isn't the agency of that property assumed by the next owners?
Click to expand...
While the law allows you to prune to the property line without limitation, civil law does create a limit. Whatever is done can't do significant harm to the tree or diminish the property value. Damaging roots would cause that harm.

As for the original error, Trees growing on property lines are owned as tenants in common. That means both parties have an undivided interest in the tree. The own it simultaneously. So the error falls on both if the tree is allowed to grow on the line. However once it has grown that much there is no justification for causing harm without due consideration of available options.
 
treehumper said:
While the law allows you to prune to the property line without limitation, civil law does create a limit. Whatever is done can't do significant harm to the tree or diminish the property value. Damaging roots would cause that harm.

As for the original error, Trees growing on property lines are owned as tenants in common. That means both parties have an undivided interest in the tree. The own it simultaneously. So the error falls on both if the tree is allowed to grow on the line. However once it has grown that much there is no justification for causing harm without due consideration of available options.
Click to expand...

Very well written in understandable terms and words. So many times the laws are written in words and phrases that only lawyers can understand, which in turn cost us money for them to translate. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom