On the lot next door to us, our neighbors dug a hole for a huge pine tree that they had purchased and planned to ship to that site. However, the landscaper's driver took a wrong turn and ended up in Canada where Customs confiscated the pine tree under their law which prohibits transporting live plants across the border. Since it would take several months for them to find and transport a new pine, they simply left the hole there.

That hole went right up to our property line and our house is also built right up to that same line. The city came out six days later and condemned our house as a hazardous structure, so we had to take it down. We received no notice prior to them digging the hole for that pine.

What recourse do we have?

Reply to post by Joseph Orailginoc, on July 17, 2000 at 04:58:49:

Whatever recourse is allowed under the law in the state in question. The confiscation of the tree under Canadian law is irrelevant. The laws regarding excavation and permits for excavation, building codes and building setbacks, and reasonable care relating to structures on neighboring property would all apply. In the same state legal treatment of this situation might vary from the treatment of a situation involving a tree rather than a structure.

Bob, when you were waiting at the Customs post on the way back from NS and observed confiscation of the pine tree you were so appalled that you offered to post a message here to get some input and in that agitated state you entered the adjoining property owner's name not your own and spelled in backwards to boot!

You suggested that based on a stated fact pattern there was an absolute, black and white, no question about it right of recovery. I suggested that the right of recovery would vary by law notwithstanding the fact pattern. Is this post intended to offer some additional comment?

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on July 17, 2000 at 04:58:49:




So much for humor as an educational tool.

When I published Joe's post, I simply held this thread up to a mirror. If a reality in the physical world exists, it exists in mirror images as well--except it's presented backwards.

Both Joe's had a loss. Both Joe's had a possession which was then destroyed by someone else. Neither Joe was given fair warning; both Joe's had to pay.; and both Joe's asked the question, "What were their recourses?"

I had intended to provoke a reconsideration of the issues I thought I saw in the thread by the substitution of the tree with a house. It ought to fit more comfortably on our radar screen of familiar indignities. Since it was only a tree and Lord knows we deal with them everyday, we chose instead in the first thread to discuss the inconsistencies of law.

I presented a range of alternatives and argued that both legal and administrative remedies were available. I would now add filing of a claim under a homeowners' policy, and if the claim were valid, the insurance company would cover the damages. If the carrier has paid out, they seek to recover those moneys, including their own costs from the party at fault. It happens every day in the battles between automobiles. (Certainly Joe might not decide to go that route, that would be his business. But it's a perfectly valid recourse and that's what Joe asked to know)

Contributors to this site include many people who help shape regulations codes, and standards. It struck me that the comments could've been a bit meatier.
_______________


Of course that's presumptuous of me and I obviously failed in my strategy of irony, so let me whisk my way through the rest of the issues.


I fly back from Nova Scotia through Newark, the airport with the operational policy to just let the lemmings wander around to somehow find their way through customs and back to their connections. I suspect that lost luggage from Newark is being sent to build artificial reefs in the Atlantic Ocean to improve the fisheries. If I had found a huge confiscated pine, I assure you I'd have climbed into it for a few days as a protest.
____________________


And as to the suggestion that I am a either-or, black or white personality, I remain the avoirdupois prince of grays. if I ever get even a single Aristotelian thought, I break out in a rash.
____________________

Both of the Joe's have causes of action. Both have legal and administrative remedies. Both have opportunities for recovery. If they don't, we have become a society where the punk who smashes it your windshield can also send you a bill for his broken bat.


Bob Wulkowicz

__________________

PS: Having had to type the word out a number of times, it seems to me that the "mirror"

Reply to post by Wulkowicz, on July 17, 2000 at 07:18:08:



The PS in full is supposed to be:


PS: Having had to type the word out a number of times, it seems to me that the "mirror" should really be spelled "mirrim".

____________________


I'll try to hold a place for web board designers in the 6th circle of hell...

Reply to post by Wulkowicz, on July 17, 2000 at 07:18:08:



Bob, you wrote: "And as to the suggestion that I am a either-or, black or white personality, I remain the avoirdupois prince of grays. if I ever get even a single Aristotelian thought, I break out in a rash........Both of the Joe's have causes of action. Both have legal and administrative remedies. Both have opportunities for recovery."

I wrote "Whatever recourse is allowed under the law in the state in question.....In the same state legal treatment of this situation [structure] might vary from the treatment of a situation involving a tree rather than a structure."

Which of our observations seems gray and which B&W? I think the point of the initial thread was that there are indeed inconsistencies in law from state to state and among types of property and types of actions. Joe can always initiate a legal action but he might or might not find a legal basis for remedy.

If there is no legal remedy, maybe at least the great druid will reserve a place for the neighbor who dug the whole next to the one you reserved for the web designer.

Reply to post by Scott, on July 17, 2000 at 21:26:25:


Au contaire.

The point in the initial thread was: My tree is gone; I have been injured; what are my recourses?

A definition of recourse is:


Main Entry: re·course
Pronunciation: 'rE-"kOrs, -"kors, ri-'
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English recours, from Middle French, from Late
Latin recursus, from Latin, act of running back, from recurrere to
run back -- more at RECUR
Date: 14th century
1 a : a turning to someone or something for help or protection b : a
source of help or strength : RESORT


I waited for more than a week after the thread was dormant to say we hadn't answered the man's question. I wasn't being snotty, I was disappointed. I suggested a half dozen avenues of recourse which can be taken independently or in parallel. Amongst them is travel ling to court and you're right, it may be a crap shoot.

I preferred rolling the dice in the alley behind my high school, so I'd tend to look for justice in some other options.

These include calling the city and saying, what the hell! A third is proposing new ordinances and laws. A fourth is calling the insurance company. Each and all are a choice; some repugnant, some agreeable, some ineffective, to different personalities.

I'm not sure that stating laws are inconsistent and jurisdictionally dependent is anything other than offering a truism.

You corrected me early on saying, "That's the point. It is not a cut and dried case based on physical facts alone." Well, I never thought it was.

It is, however, obvious a tort was committed---perhaps more recognized in one venue than another as involving a tree. Joe can't go jurisdiction hopping, he's stuck with the interpretive law where he lives. That does not mean he is impotent. or that his local law meets some objective standards of justice.

A jurist in the UK just awarded owners of some block buildings more that 500,000 British pounds for damages caused by a single sycamore. The payer was the municipality who was found negligent in not cutting down the tree. Wow, that's one helluva tree. Instead of cutting it down they should have given it to M7 where they could have used it in some covert operations like poison umbrellas or dolphins with bombs strapped to their heads.

Perhaps my mistake was in ascribing more grays to the title of the forum: Trees and Law: Legal Issues. "Non-legal" discussions need not apply


Hey, I don't want to fight. I've got a dozen of good questions from you I should be answering. Let's save acrimony for when I really get heretical.