Scott, in the 1995 field guide, under placement it says "Dust Reduction for Neighbors". This tells me that effect on other properties can be a factor in rating, which I thought it proper NOT to consider before. Now I'll consider effect on neighbors as well as owners, but only if it gets into nuisance/liability ares.

What would the rest of you do?
For me this throws in one more possibly confusing point on location, which surely wasn't needed.

Today's case had Man being sued for $3009 for his cutting of a sweetgum that hung over his property and man's appraiser valuing tree at $60.
Tree owner's appraiser was paid a straight $500. for the valuation job (note to Man's appraiser--raise the rates!) but this did not include testifying.

Man's appraiser laid out reasoning for his $60. value and was thanked profusely by magistrate.
Also defended the COC recommendation of one redbud and 3 ligustrum (which had been rejected earlier by the avariciousness and vindictive owners).

Case was dismissed because tree owner's appraiser was not in court to defend his report.
Note to appraisers and other consultants, as if you didn't know already: Your report will be worthless to your clients in courts if they do not pay you to appear and testify.

Reply to post by Guy, on April 12, 2002 at 16:19:33:

"Case was dismissed because tree owner's appraiser was not in court to defend his report."

Man is out $500 plus legal expense to defend. Lawyer makes out handsomely, Man's appraiser got paid for a job well done (report fee plus testimony time?).

Owner is out one tree, and court fees, maybe legal counsel too?

So who "wins"?

Guy, tell the Man's appraiser it sounds like he did a good job, even if it was dismissed on technicality.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on April 12, 2002 at 16:19:33:

Russ, I think it was tree owner's (plaintiff's) appraiser who got paid $500 for report and did not show to testify. Man's appraiser seems to have worked less expensively but did a thorough and professional job. Too bad the two opinions were not both defended so the magistrate could decide the "fact of value" so we could know, but man is off the hook (but out some fees too).

I find that more often than not I'm telling potential clients to really talk through with their attorney what the case may cost and what the chances are of prevailing, BEFORE I even sign on to do the appraisal. "OK client.... say the lawyer predicts $2k in court costs and say the appraisal will cost $750 plus any court time, plus your time spent dealing with all this and you could lose. Would you maybe rather just spend $3k on a new tree and be done with it?" (In CT case law for private trees often leads judges to not even admit replacement cost testimony.... so it's not even a question of defending opinions).

What I find troubling is the sense that some appraisers, perhaps encouraged by lawyers, seem to throw out high opinions of value. Troll with it and see what you catch. No bites? Ok cut your losses and go home. So there's either a high number in the record, or no record at all. Ever a challenge to avoid advocacy for either side (high # if for plantiff, low # for defendant, both weeping and crying, perhaps scarred emotionally for life) and look at the facts.

So back to Location. Some facts are very clear. IF the definition of value is Market Value of RE then the tree must be limited to its contribution.... whether by reasonableness test or RE Appraiser. IF the tree is out of sight over the hill across the swamp full of crockagators and nobody even new it was there until the Boy Scout Troop from the rich neighborhood knocked on the door and honestly told you they mistakenly cut it down when they wandered off the scout preserve into your property. Ah ha. Now you want $50k from the parents. NOT! There was no Contribution. Clear cut.

The driveway tree is sort of over the line. Maybe it is a nuisance to the neighbor. Do I have the expertise to estimate how much nuisance? Do I know what the legal remedies are? Dicey area I think. I think we can certainly consider that kind of potential reduction in value (depreciation). But I'd be careful in stating it as clear, absolute fact.

Let's assume 100% Condition and Species just to be simple. Replacement Cost (direct or TFM, no matter) is X. Good data for that, no question. Say Location is a non-primary landscape tree, 60%, before considering nuisance or boundary issues. Pretty clear facts, well within your expertise. But the neighbor says the tree shades the garden and is a nuisance. 20% of the crown overhangs the boundary. So is the value 0.60X(1.0-0.2)? Dunno, maybe. Is that really where the boundary is? Can the tree be trimmed back propery for half that? Does it matter? Is the nuisance legally actionable? You can imagine umpteen variations. I often think that that final "fact" of value in situations like that is up to the court or the parties. They want you to come up with a single easy number. But is that just part of the game? "Oh I don't want to steer you but could you come up with a single # for my poor, emotionally distraught client?" And then you get on the stand and the other side says "so you say Location was 48%, could it have been 38%? 52%? Well what good is your opinion?" If the facts are not dead clear maybe we should be saying "What we know is this (size, condition, replacements cost, whatever. And we know X% of crown over boundary. And Y sf of shade cast worst time of day [cite Tree Shadows 5.0 (TM)] and could reduce value as much as 2/3 at least 1/3. YOU decide."

Guy, if you can confirm. Dusty Neighbors are in 1995 TFM field report form-guide? Or CoC Guide? I'll look again.

Reply to post by Scott, on April 12, 2002 at 23:15:46:

Answer to Russ's rhetorical question first: Clearly both parties lost; plaintiff blew it by not accepting COC replacement plants, imo. Acted as their own lawyers; fools for clients.

Scott, last first: 1995 ctla field guide, bottom of Location page cites dusty neighbors. Again, imo trees' effects on neighbors only applicable where CLEAR AND PRESENT liability, or nuisance in legal sense. Man's appraiser quoted Dirr and Gilman re hazard of gumballs on hard surfaces, even tho not factored in rating.

Field guide example, trees buffering a dump, clearly the effect on neighbors affected RE value; an unbuffered dump is worth a lot less, not to mention the potential legal problems w ordinances.

You're right; too bad both appraisers not there to determine facts of value--man's appraiser itching to defend his figures. He shares Scott's approach of documenting ruthlessy determined figures of different approaches and letting parties/judges decide. COC is often taken here as a compromise route that encourages settlement, and is routinely used.

Local ordinances mandating inch-for-inch replacement of trees lost on developed property can also be cited as an example of how govt's handle tree loss--parallel to COC and OK to cite as substantiation, imo. Your thoughts???

PS re lawyering, man's mouthpiece first sought dismissal on the grounds that plaintiff did not have surveyor there to testify to ownership...went on and on re charters, King of England, yadayada. The magistrate really wanted to stuff a sock in his mouth, you could tell. Man's appraiser squirmed, ashamed to be on the same side. Fortunately the lack of plaintiff's appraiser gave her an easier out than sorting through his hogwash.

Reply to post by Guy, on April 13, 2002 at 06:43:28:

Horror story-

"PS re lawyering, man's mouthpiece first sought dismissal on the grounds that plaintiff did not have surveyor there to testify to ownership...went on and on
re charters, King of England, yadayada. The magistrate really wanted to stuff a sock in his mouth, you could tell. Man's appraiser squirmed, ashamed to be
on the same side. Fortunately the lack of plaintiff's appraiser gave her an easier out than sorting through his hogwash."

I had a similar situation, but was on the wrong side in that. Client called Tuesday, asked if I could appraise a small tree that was damaged, on Wednesday. Schedule clear, so I arrived at 10 AM. Appriased tree, said I'd send report. Client wanted figures NOW. Dutifully sat in car and worked out value (had brought appropriate books). Gave client numbers on hand-written sheet. Client then wanted me to go to court at 11:30 with him representing himself. After getting check in hand, I went.

Making long story short, defendent showed up with lawyer who proceded with similar tactic, saying plaintiff (client) had no proof of property line or ownership (despite that it was surveyed a month before appraiser was there and stakes were clearly marked).

I was paid, and learned a lot, but still felt my time was wasted. Again, a fool for a client. I promptly made it a policy to NOT go to court unless there is a lawyer along.

Reply to post by Guy, on April 13, 2002 at 06:43:28:

OK I have the 1995 TFM Field Guide reference.

I'm not sure the logic is strong here. We assume the trees are on the dump property, the one with the low value use. They are given high placment rating. That's OK but I'm not sure it is directly becasue of the benefit to the neighbors. If there is no regulation requiring the dump to screen or reduce dust then the dump gets no additional value from that functional placement. If however the dump is required to have the screen and dust control the there is a benefit TO THE DUMP, the owner for having them and I'm not sure why contribution should be lower than placment. Could also have value just in not having angry neighbors. But if trees owned by neighbors (it's not clear) then the neighbors do get the value from their own trees. But if this is the case this is a higher value use than the 20% site rating suggests. In NEITHER case is the value TO THE NON-OWNER.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on April 13, 2002 at 12:30:07:

Russ, that is a horror. Did client not have a copy of title and and survey? The plaintiffs in my case did, along w photos of survey stakes and stump, and IMO the magistrate would likely have accepted them as proof of ownership despite the lawyerly yadayada.

Re policy, I'm all the more likely to work for clients who do their own lawyering IF they have a good grip on the process; ducks in row, bases covered, etc. After all, lawyers can fail to do their work, too, so their involvement is no guarantee client will get fair shake. But that's just my bias.