NC Man gets new neighbors. he cares for their landscape when they're away in summer. everything's fine. next spring man is clearing weeds the day before trash pickup.

man has 9" sweetgum 3' from driveway. 1' to north of it is a 8" redmaple. 1' to south is a 6" ironwood, ostrya. man cuts down sweetgum.

man is notified by neighbor sweetgum was thirs. resurvey verifies. Obvious error, landscaping obscured line. nonetheless, man is summoned to court to answer for malicious trespassing and willful destruction.

Civil suit also; $3009 damages alleged. Man's appraiser finds a 9" sweetgum to transplant, installed cost $675. based on stump, condition 90%.

Location, due to proximity to other trees, 10%, net $60.75. COC proposed; 1 redbud and 3 shrubs installed.
We'll see what neighbors say.
What do you think about this?

Reply to post by guy, on March 21, 2002 at 05:04:25:

A sad story. It should never have gone to court. Too bad about Man doing the Summer tending for them but we can't get into any such alleged background.

Point is it wasn't his tree and one shouldn't make guesses about where a boundary is. It's a pretty big jump from "weeds" to a 9" tree.

Is 10% an appropriate Location factor? Maybe. Maybe not. If beneficiary wanted distinct landscape trees one of the big ones gotta go. Ironwood arguably could stay as understory. But if beneficiary wanted a natural woodland grouping those two trees could have grown together for about ever. They'd have wound up like two leaders of one tree.... what an artistic combination. And not hypothetical. I know of a property where lots was spent to move in a black birch, say 20", with a red maple, say 14", a few feet away with native mt. laurels under both. One big soil ball will all the plants moved into place at once. Boulders too. Big bucks. A natural grouping.

Now, would the beneficiary have had unencumberd rights to that grouping forever? Would Man have had the legal right to keep cutting branches back to the actual boudary making the grouping dumb? Maybe.

Who is the beneficiary? What is the law? What is the equity?

Gee, who is Man's appraiser?

Reply to post by Scott, on March 21, 2002 at 05:04:25:

Scott, I'm all for natural groupings but this one had no future to be an artistic combination, or anything good. Maple had 45 degree lean, correctable when young but not later imo, due to gum, and had gloomy scale going up trunk. this pest is an epidemic in this area on stressed maples. Gum's effect on surrounding veg per CTLA: "placement of a plant also can have an unfavorable effect on the site..."

Ostrya also starting to get one-sided due to gum, but correctable as still branched 360. case has not gone to court and the anonymous appraiser hopes it never will but if it does 10% on Location entirely justifiable.

re artistic combination I've seen some beauties where both trees shared canopies and interwove branches. In those cases loss of one would diminish value of other, eh?

Reply to post by guy, on March 21, 2002 at 05:04:25:

Man previously had invitation (I presume he was asked and agreed to care for landscape previous summer), and was currently in the process of landscape maintenance. If there was not other notice to stay off neighbor's property, tresspass per se may not be enforceable. Man should tt his lawyer. Not the arborist's problem.

Considering that Delaware has been called the "sweet gum capital of the world", I am well aware of the potential problem these trees present. When mature, the gumballs are a serious nuisance for most people, depending on location. With this in mind, as well as proximity of other trees and driveway, a low location factor may be quite appropriate.

Here's another question- can Man now go back and demand compensation for his time to maintain landscape the previous summer? Hmmmm.....

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 21, 2002 at 05:04:25:

Yes, previous invitation to enter property can't hurt defendant re trespass prosecution. but true not arborist's concern wince we're not paid to be lawyers, as noted on wetlands thread.

Sweetgum "balls" not nearly the nuisance some perceive them to be; otherwise a fine tree; I often refuse to remove those over lawns, advocating widening mulch or living with them or calling joe hacker. Over driveways, or with old people, maybe...

re Location, appraiser had given 10% on basis of "unfavorable effect on the (owner's) site" by gum's reduction of maple and ironwood's value. No consideration given to effect on neighbor's property. appraiser figured that was not relevant. Was s/he right?

Reply to post by Guy, on March 21, 2002 at 12:24:33:

Guy, I'll wrap togteher my response here and to your reply to my first post.

"re Location, appraiser had given 10% on basis of "unfavorable effect on the (owner's) site" by gum's reduction of maple and ironwood's value. No consideration given to effect on neighbor's property. appraiser figured that was not relevant. Was s/he right?"

This could get very complex depending on a fact I don't think you've given us.... who owned maple and ironwood? Man or plaintiff neighbor? Sounds like Man.

Also sounds like Man removed the good tree. Your other post says the maple was crummy. I'm not sure it's appropriate to depreciate the value of a good tree because of the crummy trees around it. Was the appraisal assignment to appraise the value of the gum to it's owner or to Man? As owner I think neighbor had the rights to beneficial interest in the gum. How can you not consider them? If the maple was so crummy, unfixable and undesireable 45 deg lean, why did man want it and not the dominant gum?

If you want to start considering things like the value of landscaping services, prior intent, da, da, da ,da, why didn't Man approach owner or prior owner a long time ago about all this damage being done to his maple? Assuming he has a right of self help for overhanging branches.

And in that environment is Ostraya properly an understory tree? If this is a marginal loacational kind of area can you claim an understory plant is damaged by a dominant overstory becasue it is no longer specimen-landscape quality stand-alone.

Even if the case is not cut and dried that it is only value (benefit, utility) to the owner that properly applies to be independent and disineterested (rather than advocating for Man) I think you'd want to consider and report the effect on both interests or the relative value of the plants involved. Say you have a total grouping value. 60% say goes to gum 'cause it's biggest and best, 30% goes to maple 'cause it's suppressed and stressed and irretrievable deformed and 10% to ironwood 'cause it's much smaller understory. Run some numbers. Partial damages to the 30% and 10% components reduces the value of the 60% component to 10%? Doesn't sound, well... sound.

The appraiser has to consider the rights to the beneficial interest as well as the benefits. And the party with the rights defines what is beneficial. What is beneficial to the appraiser or somebody else may have no value to the owner. Consider what you've said in these posts. You think gum trees are quite OK. You actually refuse to remove them for potential clients. That is 100% your right as a contractor, citizen of the green world. But you are imposing your sense of value on the tree's owner. That is not your right as an appraiser. That's not an esy concept to embrace sometimes, but the appraiser's role is not to be an environmental educator or steward.

Reply to post by Scott, on March 22, 2002 at 06:32:31:

well scott I sure wasn't clear before. Let's see if we can get together on this.

All 3 trees belonged to neighbor. I appraised cut gum from neighbor's perspective ONLY, because they owned it, not considering growing nuisance to man because man did not own it.

I think that's maintaining independence. My question was, does Location only pertain to owner's property? We both seem to think yes.

Maple is deformed but due to irregular growth habit can grow into a good asset with gum gone. Gloomy Scale on maple easily treatable at early stage. Gum removal makes it a much less serious pest--one oilspray should do it. Ironwood definitely an excellent understory species here, but 2' from gum it was deforming.
With maple growing away from it, they have the potential to be an architectural asset.

On SW corner of house, in large mulched area, in view of owners, not inhibiting more preferred species, etc. etc., Location would have been much higher.

(Just told by man criminal charges dropped, settlement offer in, but civil case has a court date set. $3009 vs. $60.75. If it comes to that, appraiser is ready to defend 10% Location rating. Bring on Johnny Cochran or F Lee whoever.)

Are facts on Independence Impartiality or Objectivity clear enough to beam me down some agreement, Scotty?

Reply to post by Guy, on March 22, 2002 at 06:34:04:

Much clearer, thanks. If I understand this now it sounds like Man's appraiser suggests that left together both trees would have become less valuable as they were too close to mature as individuals. So removing gum only reduced present value of grouping by $60.75.

Just for sake of argument, if Man had removed maple, would it have reduced PV of grouping by something similar? Say $40 because it contributed less, growing on angle, etc.

Put another way PV of grouping might have been say $1,000 but removing either of the big trees would have reduced PV by only 10% or less because the screening, condition, form etc. would suffer for a short time but be better off long term without one tree. Sounds reasonable.

Unless Owner argues convincingly that they really, REALLY liked the gum better because of those neat star shaped leaves and the great Fall color and they can harvest the gumballs and throw them on Man's driveway. Or, actualy it will take 20 years for the grouping to recover so damage was more than 10% and left alone the grouping would have been fine with two big trees anyway and the gum screened the transformer on the utility pole better.

Somebody besides the appraiser determines the fact of value. Time will tell. Maybe it will tell Man's appraiser or may keep it a secret. But sounds like you made a reasoned and Independent case.

Reply to post by Scott, on March 21, 2002 at 21:51:28:

Scott,

your statement - "But you are imposing your sense of value on the tree's owner. That is not your right as an appraiser. That's not an esy concept to embrace sometimes, but the appraiser's role is not to be an environmental educator or steward" - is true, but it's sad to differentiate and now realize that what's good for the planet isn't good for man's concepts.

Reply to post by guy, on March 21, 2002 at 05:04:25:

OK I'm not going to re-read this whole thread, but I'm responding to the question in the roots thread.

I don't seem to have the particular filed guide you ask about. The 8th Ed TFM field folder talks about negative Location placement issues like, houses, utilities. but not specifically neighbors.

No matter. Of course you can consider that. You can consier anything that affects value. If it's not a Species or condition characteristic, you consider it in Location. Value to whom? I think we agreed to the owner, not the guy who did the "neighborly" cutting. If the tree is entirely his and creates no legal nuisance the value is all his and even if the neighbor doesn't like it, value to the owner is not reduced by the neighbor's concerns. On the other hand if there is an encroachemnt or dropping fruits or any other legal nusiance that the neighbor could take action about, then maybe there is a reduction in value.

That's all a matter of the case facts. The Field Guide (nor any other book or method) does not give you any specific value or remedy just becasue it says neighbor effects can be considered. It's just telling you to look at the facts.

And extra points for remembering Astro.