Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 23

If you plant tree(s) 1 inch from a someone's land and they don't want trees over it what happens?

(inspired by seeing a line of trees who's centers are in one property and who's trunks (or at least branches) extend into another)

Who owns the tree(s)? If they just cut off the parts over their property the trunk centered on someone else's property would die. What if the neighbor was okay with it but his replacement wasn't? (let's say he died right after his neighbor planted tree seed(s) and the place was sold to an 18 year old who wanted to sunbathe there for decades and didn't know about the tree planting) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laws vary in different jurisdictions. I did find all of the following with a simple Google search for "tree growing into neighbor's yard." : Conflicts Involving Trees and Neighbors, Responsibility for an Overhanging Tree, Is a property owner obligated to trim trees that hang onto my property?. Most of these appear to pertain to US law, and I'm sure laws vary from state to state. Also be aware that MANY jurisdictions have what are called "setbacks" which require a certain minimum distance from property lines for planting of trees, building fences, paving driveways, or constructing outbuildings or additions, etc. These setbacks in most jurisdictions would not allow you to plant a tree so close to a neighbor's yard in the first place. --Jayron 32 01:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a similar situation in England, except that we have the additional concept of right to light, so that if a neighbour's tree or fence puts the windows of your house in the shade, depriving you of "sufficient light according to the ordinary notions of mankind", a court can order its removal. Alansplodge (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan has no setback requirement until a certain height, a right to build a 2,000 foot tall slab on 25% of the lot, and a right to buy enough unused "building allowance" from churches, train stations etc. to completely ignore that 25% rule. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the statement "Laws vary in different jurisdictions." What the setback requirements are in Manhattan is not necessarily what they are in Peoria, Houston, or Rancho Cucamonga. --Jayron 32 11:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I believed they would vary before I even asked. The England rule would actually be pretty nice for slower growing areas. I wonder if any of the thousands of non-British jurisdictions have it (no need to answer that, that'd be too much work) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more research on the situation in England reveals that Section 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 allows local authorities to act when a "hedge is adversely affecting the complainant’s reasonable enjoyment of their property” but applies only to evergreen hedges more than 2 metres high and not to individual trees. [1] This was prompted by the popularity of screens of fast-growing Leyland Cypresses (curiously known here by their Latin name of Leylandii), which can plunge a neighbour's garden into perpetual darkness. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to ask my dad, since my parents happen to have the same issue with both their neighbors. The neighbors to the west have an-ill kept yard, with a huge dead fig that is lowering the value when they want to sell, and although their larch is on their side of the fence, it overhangs my parents' back yard, and I routinely prune the dead branches that overhang our yard. (Mom sneaks onto their property and does pruning, weed-removal, and has pulled half dead shrubs from the ground. I have warned her not to expect me to bail her out when she gets arrested for trespass.)

On the other side, there is a huge oak which straddles the eastern property line. That neighbour's house is very well kept, at least on the streetfront. My understanding is that both owners have to agree on cutting it down, since my father wants it to stay, but the neighbor has offered to pay for its removal, yet it is still there after 5 years or so since the offer.

Things like these are civil law matters in common law countries, and it's best to ask a lawyer, if your local librarian can't find you the relevant statutes. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent news story about a guy who cut down a neighbor's tree and it fell on his own building.[2] The story says the guy was complaining about tree sap falling on his car. The reader can decide who the real sap is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] [4] [5] [6] (maybe also [7] [8] [9]) for info on the situation in New Zealand. As those sources note, one big issue is whether the tree is protected. If it is, then both neighbours are limited on what they can do with it without permission. If it's not protected, then generally any overhanging branches and roots edit: can be cut/trimmed. (Note however per the refs any fruit etc still belong to the owner.) If part of the trunk is really overhanging I guess this can but cut too although it's likely not something to do without legal advice, especially due to the risk of the tree damaging something if it dies. If there's no overhang, it's possible a court may order for the tree to be trimmed or removed in certain circumstances outlined in those refs (including light and other factors) or see [10] for what the law says. Note that local government does have some flexibility in some areas. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My father, who's been on the town council, various planning boards, consulted various lawyers, and discussed the issue with neighbours over 42 years of residence, confirms that, in his 50,000 pop. jurisdiction in NJ, if the trunk was planted on one side of the property and later overgrows the property line, the tree becomes joint property, and cannot be cut down without the agreement of both parties. This first happened in th 70's, when my parents had to get formal permission to cut down a willow on the property line whose roots were growing into our water mains.

The catch is that any mere branch which overhangs your property can be trimmed to the property line without permission of the person upon whose yard the trunk grows. My neighbours had a spruce whose trunk was on their property, but whose branches overhang my parents. (They had the full right to remove it, which they did, as long as they restored a normal law, leaving no obvious scar, which they did.) However, the subsequent lowering of property value to the neighbour who did not consent to the pruning (imagine 51% a Christmas tree on the property line) is subject to being sued for having damaged the neighbour's property value.

This has happened often in his town, where neighbours trying to sell their properties have gone to court trying to get a writ demanding the neighbouring properties maintain their front yards, with a demand that if they do not so within a certain time they will be compelled to do so or be liable for the costs of doing so, if they do not do it themselves.

This is anecdotal material regarding a NJ municipality, and not general legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, a "party wall" is the wall within the building which separates adjoining houses. It belongs to both titles, and there is a Party Wall Act which regulates matters concerning it. We don't have a procedure where a neighbour can sue because something in the adjoining property is detrimental to his resale value (apart from Right to Light). There is no privacy law, for example. There is, however, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher under which a landowner is liable, if he brings and keeps on his property something which is liable to cause damage if it escapes, for what happens if it does escape. There is the general law of nuisance, and also a possible liability under the Public Health Act if a property becomes run down. A landowner must comply with any restrictive covenants and any planning permission (e.g. must not build closer to the boundary line than stated). Also there is a duty of care to trespassers. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the duty of care applies under the attractive nuisance doctrine, where having an unfenced yard might attract small children to drown in your pool. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cases where a part of a U.S. state constitution was struck down as being unconstitutional

Other than Reynolds v. Sims and Romer v. Evans, are there any other cases where a part of a U.S. state constitution was struck down as being unconstitutional? Futurist110 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may help your research perhaps? Just a quick search of that list (which is somewhat broader than your requirements) turns up at least 3 more cases: Coombes v. Getz, Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, and McDaniel v. Paty. There may be more on that list, but that's what a quick scan from me turned up. --Jayron 32 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Futurist110 and Jayron32: In addition to those identified above, three cases immediately come to mind: Torcaso v. Watkins (U.S. Supreme Court struck down Maryland Constitution's religious requirement for public office as violating the No Religious Test Clause); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arkansas state constitutional amendment essentially mandating term limits for federal officials struck down as inconsistent with federal constitution); Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona (Arizona Supreme Court struck down "English Only" provision in state constitution as a violation of federal Constitution, specifically First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause). Neutrality^talk 04:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]