Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Washington

Re: Compensation for removal of trees from private property without permission

I am including several case decision on your issue. You can go to the library and read these case decisions regarding how to calculate the damages for trespass. Please note, you may also be entitled to a claim for emotional distress. Good luck with your negotiations.

COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES.

A jury can award damages for timber trespass, before any statutory trebling, in excess of the value of the underlying land, but the damages must still be reasonable in relation to the property value. Allyn v. Boe, 87 Wn. App. 722, 943 P.2d 364 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1020, 958 P.2d 315 (1998).

Even though a landowner establishes personal reasons for restoring the land to its original condition, replacement costs must still be reasonable in relation to the value of the land before trespass or to the damage to the land. Allyn v. Boe, 87 Wn. App. 722, 943 P.2d 364 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1020, 958 P.2d 315 (1998).

Awards for emotional distress damages as well as for violations of this section upheld; the statutory damages compensate for diminished value to property, while emotional distress damages provide compensation for injury to the person. Birchler v. Castello Land Co., 81 Wn. App. 603, 915 P.2d 564 (1996), aff'd, 133 Wn.2d 106, 942 P.2d 968 (1997).

Proper measure of damages for the intentional destruction of seven fruit trees was lost production value trebled. Sparks v. Douglas County, 39 Wn. App. 714, 695 P.2d 588 (1985).

Damages treble the stumpage value awarded for an intentional timber trespass are not necessarily punitive but attempt to compensate the owner of growing timber for premature harvesting by the trespasser. Bloedel Timberlands Dev., Inc. v. Timber Indus., Inc., 28 Wn. App. 669, 626 P.2d 30, review denied, 95 Wn.2d 1027 (1981).

Stumpage value is not an adequate measure of relief to a plaintiff who intended to market his trees by cutting them and selling them as logs or lumber rather than by selling them as standing timber. Pearce v. G.R. Kirk Co., 92 Wn.2d 869, 602 P.2d 357 (1979).

Prejudgment interest is not allowable upon jury award in a timber trespass case brought under this section. Ventoza v. Anderson, 14 Wn. App. 882, 545 P.2d 1219, review denied, 87 Wn.2d 1007 (1976); International Raceway, Inc. v. JDFJ Corp., 97 Wn. App. 1, 970 P.2d 343 (1999).

This section precludes the allowance of interest. Rayonier, Inc. v. Polson, 400 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1968).

Verdict may stand where evidence shows cost of restoration more than damages awarded. Hertzog v. Star Logging Co., 73 Wn. 197, 131 P. 806 (1913).

Testimony of witness as to value of own timber may be sufficient where not contradicted by other evidence. Hertzog v. Star Logging Co., 73 Wn. 197, 131 P. 806 (1913).

Verdict for $974.19 for trespass in cutting trees may be excessive where most favorable testimony showed value of $785.74. Nethery v. Nelson, 51 Wn. 624, 99 P. 879 (1909).

Jane M. Savard