Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
My roots were cut
We had a new neighbor move in next door approximately 3 months ago.
Without consultation, they had a landscaping company build a dividing
wall between our properties. In the process, the landscapers cut the
roots of my California Pepper tree at the property line.
Low and behold, during our first storm, the tree blew over revealing
where the roots had been cut.
I understand the neighbors may trim roots or overhanging foliage, but
only to the property line and in a ''non-negligable'' manner. What is the
code or statue that states such rules? Are there case references to such
statutes?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: My roots were cut
The rule of law you're referring to is from a judge-written decision ("case law" or "common law") and isn't statutory. I read the phrase years ago in a real-estate law book I no longer have, but from memory it goes something like this: Tree limbs or roots growing across a property line are trespassory, and the person in lawful possession of the invaded parcel can cut the limbs or roots at the property line, but must do so in a non-negligent manner.
The judge, in expressing the rule, did not amplify upon what might be negligent cutting, but it's reasonable to presume that cutting in a way that would forseeably cause the tree to topple in a storm is negligent.
If a case like this went to trial, the attorneys on both sides would have to argue negligence law, including what is the standard of care (i.e., can a wall contractor do the cutting, or should the neighbor have hired a licensed arborist to advise him) and forseeability (was this a freak incident or would a pepper tree, thus cut, almost always blow over in a typical winter windstorm).
I will try to locate the case and get you a few additional points of law in a supplemental LawGuru posting.
Re: My roots were cut
Apparently the most important and recent case on this subject is Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1786. The case contains citations to earlier cases such as Bonde v. Bishop and Grandona v. Lovdal, which Booska interprets and limits.