California really does take its tree cutting seriously. (Stanley Kallis v. Aaron Sones, LASC SC104866)

In another recent tree case, the Appellate Court was asked to decide what and how much in damages must be paid when a tree, growing between two properties, is damaged by one of the property owners.

In Kallis v. Sones, these were two neighbors who lived side by side for years. They never seemed to have a problem. In between their property was a tree that grew 70 feet in height. The tree grew on the property line that divided both properties, also referred to as a “line tree”. See Scarborough v. Woodill (1907) 7 Cal.App.39, 40. And eventually, part of the tree grew so tall that the Sones family felt that the part of the tree, hanging over their yard, would be a danger to their home. So, the Soneses decided to protect their home by cutting the tree. The only problem is that the Soneses cut down the entire tree, even though some of that tree also grew on their neighbor’s property. The Soneses claimed they gave their neighbors a written notice but there was no proof this was ever done. (In a prior posting, I suggested that anyone deciding to cut down a tree that may also be on a neighbor’s yard should give written notice of the tree cutting. Had there been proof of this, the court may have decided differently.)

The Sones family was sued by the Kallis family, and the court sided with the Kallis family. The court awarded what it would cost to restore a tree similar in height and size, also referred to as “restoration cost”. See Heninger v. Dunn (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 858, 862. The court also doubled that award under Civil Code Section 3346. The total amount came to exceed $100,000. The Soneses appealed and claimed that the damages, if any, should have been reduced to reflect the fact that the tree grew on both properties, so the Soneses were entitled to a credit for half the tree they owned. That’s a fair argument however the Kallis family argued that the tree provided a lot of personal value to them, a value that could not easily be replaced. The Court heard testimony on this “personal value” and held that the personal value of the tree to the Kallis family justified the entire amount ordered, including the doubling of that award.

The summary of this case is that a tree growing between two property owners is owned by both property owners, and if you are going to cut away any part of that jointly owned line tree, make sure to (1) notify your neighbor and (2) avoid causing harm, personal or otherwise, to the part of the tree owned by the neighbor next door.

Do not go out on a limb when cutting a neighbor’s overhanging tree branches.

Generally, in California, a landowner can cut branches of a neighbor’s tree if the branches overhang in his/her yard. But, the landowner cannot cut so much of the tree if it ends up damaging or destroying the neighbor’s tree. In a recent case, the Appellate Court added that the landowner who cuts down over hanging branches of a neighbor’s tree can also be responsible for damages if the tree trimming affects the aesthetic or functional value of the tree.

In Rony v. Costa, a defendant landowner wanted to clear some overhanging branches of a tree that were growing from a tree located on a neighbor’s yard. The case is not clear if the defendant landowner informed the neighbor that the branches would be cut down. Under the law, the defendant landowner generally has the right to cut overhanging branches. But, the landowner went too far, according to the Appellate Court, when the tree branch cutting harmed the aesthetic and functional value of the tree. The tree, itself, did not die nor was it damaged significantly. The tree owner, however, testified that the tree, before its branches were cut, provided shade and made her yard more attractive to the eye. That was the aesthetic value.

On appeal, the Appellate Court held that a tree owner can recover for the loss of a tree’s aesthetic value. In other words, the Appellate Court allowed the tree owner to recover for the emotional damage caused by the tree branch cutting. Aesthetic value is generally a subjective decision and often difficult to place a value on. In this case, the tree owner could not place a dollar figure on her emotional damage, but the Appellate Court held that she did not have to do so. A jury “was free to place any dollar amount on aesthetic harm, unless the amount was ‘ “…so grossly excessive as to shock the moral sense, and raise a reasonable presumption that the jury was under the influence of passion or prejudice.” See Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1961) 56 Cal.2d 498, 506-509 [15 Cal.Rptr. 161, 364 P.2d 337] [affirming award of hard-to-measure emotional distress damages]; See Weller v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 991, 1011-1014 [283 Cal.Rptr. 644] [affirming awards for reputational and emotional harms].)

In California, trees are very well protected. Code of Civil Procedure 733 and Civil Code 3346 allow a tree owner to recover up to 3 times the cost of repairing the damaged tree.  Under case law, according to the Appellate Court, the tree owner can recover for the damage caused to the aesthetic value of her tree. In addition, Code of Civil Procedure 1029.8 allows a tree owner to recover attorneys’ fees against the unlicensed person who actually caused the damage when a license is required to perform the work.

Not mentioned in the court opinion is whether the defendant landowner informed the tree owner that the overhanging branches were going to be cut. Although not required, it is recommended that the person about to cut branches or roots let the tree owner know in advance what is going to be done. Including the tree owner in on the plan could help keep the consequences of what happened here out of court.

www.campanolaw.com