Real Estate Law
Have Real Estate Law Questions? Ask a Real Estate Lawyer.
Hello and welcome! My name is ***** ***** I am a licensed attorney whowill try my very best to help with your situation or get you to someone who can. There may be a slight delay in my responses as I research statutes or ordinances and type out an answer or reply,but rest assured, I am working on your question.
If the neighbor cut down the trees that are on your property, then that is damaging your personal property and you can hold them liable for the value of the trees. This would be determined by a licensed arborist normally who would give an estimate based on the size and age of the trees. In order to prove that the trees are yours, you would need an updated survey to show that they trespassed on your land and took the trees down.
As for the wall, unless there is some local ordinance, you can tell them to shove it because you have no duty to take any action to divert the natural flow of any rainwater that has been occurring for many years. If they want a wall, let them build their own.
Is that a general rule, the value x 3? They cut down 50 year old trees that were screening my property.
Yes, there is no hard and fast rule regarding the value of trees. The 3X comes into play as punitive damages if this was a malicious and intentional act done strictly to annoy or harass you.. But the judge can also look at the depreciation in the aesthetic value of the property due to the loss of the trees vs. when it had them..
So basically you get an estimate of the value of the trees and then bump any claim by a couple thousand for the aesthetic loss and let the judge decide.
As for the driveway, you would have to wait until you actually incurred damages due to them removing the trees and then sue them separately again for those as they aren't readily ascertainable right now.. You can't sue them for what might happen or possible injuries in the future..
He is secondarily liable for trespass, but since he was acting on the direction of the neighbor, they are primarily liable under the doctrine of "respondeat superior" which states that the employer is liable for the actions of his agents.