Trees & Boundary Lines: Significant Things to consider According to Jeffrey T. Angley, P.C.

It is definitely common to find out with regards to tree cutting cases when any landowner wants to cut the particular twigs of a next door neighbor's tree which overhang the common border line-which is actually lawful, to some point-or actually those cases when a person trespasses onto the territory of one other to reduce or even decrease trees completely placed about that lot-which is actually illegal. No matter what actual motivation for these kinds of cutting and slicing, Massachusetts law is rather obvious regarding whether obligation and damages will certainly ensue under those situations informs Jeffery T. Angley.

Yet why not consider if a tree equally straddles two lots? Not merely the particular branches, but the primary trunk area itself? Exactly who is the owner of the actual sapling, and, more importantly, can all or a percentage of it be legitimately taken away? These kinds of things to consider grow to be significant any time a landowner needs to make many improvements on or perhaps under the boundary line that need eliminating the sapling.

Interestingly enough, Massachusetts case law is largely undecided about precisely what rights are present when a tree trunk grows over a boundary line. In one circumstance, Levine v. Black, 312 Mass. 242 (1942), the judge had the capacity to handle the issue, but ultimately punted. At best, the Levine court mentioned that amongst other areas the tree was regarded as owned or operated as renters in common regarding the 2 nearby components, or even that each landowner possessed the area of the sapling on his individual lot, however failed to particularly determine which privileges implement in Massachusetts.

Citing Levine, a relatively latest tree cutting decision (under Rule 1:28) issued by the Appeals Court ordered that full value damages be paid for cutting a tree that straddled the boundary line. The decision didn't state the nature of property rights which helps the granted damages, and only vaguely alluded to the existence of legal rights in the tree which stop another's unilateral action which causes harm to or even destroys the tree. See Lasell College v. Fox, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (Nov. 2, 2001) ("Each of the parties held a legal interest in that part of the tree on his own property but also had the right to prevent the other party from dealing with part of the tree so as to injure or destroy the whole tree.").

Inside some other areas, the process of law have more or less backed the concept a tree increasing upon two lots is actually owned as tenants in common or collectively, and that such trees and shrubs cannot be damaged without concur, nor may they be clipped to be able to trigger material harm. See, e.g., Garcia v. Sanchez, 108 N.M. 388 (1989) (citing Annotation, Rights and Liabilities of Adjoining Landowners As to Trees, Shrubbery, or Similar Plants Growing on Boundary Line, 26 A.L.R.3d 1372, 1374-1375 (1969)); Young v. Ledford, 37 So.3d 832 (Ala.Civ.App. 2009), writ of mandamus denied Young v. Ledford, 79 So.3d 656 (Ala. Civ. App., 2011), (reversing lower court order that authorized removal of entire boundary line tree because, under Alabama law, "[i]n the special case of a boundary-line tree, ... each adjacent landowner has ownership rights that cannot be trumped by the other's desires in the manner suggested by the trial court's judgment") informs an insider from Jeffery T. Angley.

Consequently what is a landowner to do? At least, whenever a tree is located to be developing on 2 lots, the wise landowner ought to seek out the permission of his neighbor when it is needed to get rid of or perhaps substantially reduce the tree. Depending on the circumstances compelling the tree elimination, permission could be given when the neighbor is agreeable. But, in those instances in which the neighbor is hesitant to have the tree cut down, feasible choices include revising strategies so it doesn't require virtually any tree removing or even substantial cutting to the point of damage or getting a declaratory judgment action in court to have the court determine the parties' respective rights.

To understand more details on the Jeffrey T Angley P. C and real estate law, visit - Jeffrey T Angley at - http://www.jeffreytangleypc.com/

Article Source - http://www.jeffreytangleypc.com/blog/2012/08/trees-boundary-lines-important-considerations.shtml


Information Blog :-  Jeffrey T Angley P. C. on  livejournal.com

Jeffrey T Angley about the Excavation & Blasting Activities

A landowner owes a duty of lateral-subjacent help to adjacent properties. Therefore, all property owners are entitled to expect that naturally occurring soil and water situations, such as the lateral support provided by neighboring properties, will always be in their natural condition. This is a normal property right.

However, what happens when a parcel of land needs to be excavated for development? Are there consequences for or considerations to be made by the developer or landowner? Jeffrey T Angley says, of course, is yes. The reason for this is that it is well settled that for an excavation causing an injury to the soil of an adjoining owner in its natural state an action will lie, but that no recovery will be allowed in the absence of negligence or a direct trespass for an injury to structures by excavating the adjoining land.

There will be strict legal responsibility for landowners (or their contractors) that digs blast or tunnel on their land if they wipe out or hurt the lateral support benefitting adjacent property and damage the land in its natural condition.

When it comes to removal of bedrock for development, certain methods of excavation and blasting are more destructive than others. This depends on the nature of the project site in relation to its surroundings. For example, shock waves, vibrations, and cracks and fissures in the bedrock extending beyond the property line-are just some of the potential consequences of blasting. This can create an unsafe and hazardous situation for adjoining properties, and potentially subject the developer and/or landowner to claims of nuisance and negligence from adjoining property owners.

Subsequently, while excavation as well as relevant growth is certainly not restricted, this will demand a number of focus, especially because disturbance with lateral support or conduct deemed a trespass or negligent can lead to money problems owed to affected properties.

Developers, contractors and adjoining landowners can take some precautions as mentioned below:

Overview and know the suggested excavation plans before permits are given, if possible, but certainly, in advance of excavation will begin. These analyses need the expertise and input of professional geotechnical experts and engineers. They are going to looking to determine whether the plans will cause harm to neighboring properties.

For projects requiring blasting, consider alternative methods of excavation and mitigation in light of the proximity of surrounding properties, buildings and uses. There are often less intrusive methods of excavation available to developers that could help avoid the potential for negligence.

Understand that various adjoining constructions, structures and uses-such as towers and antennas anchored with person wires deep into the bedrock-may not have usual blasting criteria that will permit for a risk-free blasting plan. This is where developers must be particularly sensitive to alternative methods of excavation.

Developers and contractors must remember that it is no defence to a valid nuisance claim that their conduct was under the guise of a duly issued permit. Their conduct, notwithstanding the town or city's approval, can still result in a lawsuit if it substantially and unreasonably interferes with another landowner's use and enjoyment of his land.

Overall, it is essential that any sort of excavation or blasting task prevent disrupting or destroying the lateral assistance provided to neighboring properties.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is general in nature and for educational purposes only. No personal legal advice is being provided. If you have an actual legal issue that needs to be addressed, you should seek the advice of competent legal counsel.

The article author writes useful content articles around the various legal matters, Jeffrey T Angley and has an experience of working with many law firms like Jeffrey T Angley P. C. The article author draws motivation from the legal works of Phillips & Angley  for additional information on the same take a look at - http://www.manta.com/c/mm3vzhb/phillips-angley.

 To get Article Resource head to - http://www.jeffreytangleypc.com/blog/2012/08/excavation-blasting-activities-the-duty-of-lateral-support.shtml

Related Blog :- Phillips & Angley on posterous