Heres an interesting quandry for you!

A beech tree is planted approx 100 years ago, someone builds a house and the boundary wall is about three feet from the base of the tree. 50 or so years pass an the house changes ownership several times, meanwhile the trunk and root system of the tree grow happily until oops! the boundary wall starts to break. The purpose of this story is as follows:
1. The tree was growing in situ before the house was built.
2. Planning laws at the time of construction of the house were non-existent.
3. The tree was removed due to continued stress affecting its growth pattern and stability (and partially to prevent further damage to the boundary wall).
4. The owner of the boundary wall has now placed a claim for compensation for said damaged wall.

Question.
Due to the fact that the tree was in place before the building and that the current owner would have known about the state of the wall when the property was purchased, would this not make the wall and the tree situation part of some sort of 'Caveat Emptor'.
If I was to build a house next to a tree (not that I ever would), could I make a claim for damages to the building in 50 years time, when common sense would have dictated that the building should not have been tere in the first place.

Have fun!

Reply to post by Eirion, on September 02, 1999 at 05:07:51:

Interesting thoughts. As far as I can tell no legal body has granted trees rights by prescription, and we haven't fully gone to legislating common sense on the part of property owners, so I think most legal authorities would favor the "unknowledgable, agreaved, property owner" and view the tree as a trustpasser. Since the tree grew into the boundary, it is not fully a boundary line tree which would change the situation considerably.

Interested in hearing what others have to say.

Wayne

Reply to post by Wayne Cahilly, on September 02, 1999 at 05:07:51:

I was told of a case many years back with a similar status as the above example.

The results of the case were that the court awarded in favor of the "grandfather clause", that the tree and surounding property existed for the benefit of 'said tree' before sub dividing and buildings encroached the tree's growing area.

Unfortunately, I have lost contact with the arborist who new the exact details of this case.

Steve