Drawing Line on Neighbor’s Rights

In Robert Bruss’ June 13 Real Estate Q&A; column, “Neighbor’s Vegetation Encroaches on Yard,” he advised that a property owner is liable for his neighbor’s vegetation if that property owner undertakes to trim the encroaching neighbor’s tree branches back to the property line.

He wrote that a rule of reasonableness applies, and that if after trimming back the branches the tree dies or is damaged, the property owner would be liable.

It seems to me that this amounts to a taking of another’s property. If my neighbor has a tree situated next to the property line and its roots encroach onto my property, would I be prohibited from installing a fence for fear of killing his tree since the footing would surely impact the root system?

Worse yet, do I have to fear a lawsuit when I install a swimming pool, and a major portion of the root system is eliminated, all of this happening on my property? I think not. In fact, if the excavation was hampered by the neighbor’s tree, I would send him a bill.

This is the second time I’ve seen this advice from Bruss and as far as I know, there is no right to grow vegetation on someone else’s property.

Advice like this, without legal citation, has the effect of getting the parties into court, each claiming they are the more reasonable. If you don’t like something on your property, you don’t have to tolerate it. Who decides if my preferences are reasonable?

Do you really expect me to believe that if I wanted to add on to my house, and that addition would require the neighbor’s tree to be trimmed back to the property line, I would have to “purchase” the tree or wait for it to die before I could enjoy my property? Just doesn’t sound right.

BRUCE JOHNSON

Dana Point