Recent Aboriculture Cases of Interest
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., v. Murray (Ct.App. Mo., March 15, 2006). Pipeline company brought action against homeowner, claiming mobile home which had been in the same place for 12 years interfered with pipeline easement, seeking injunction ordering that homeowner move the home. After a bench trial, the Circuit Court denied injunctive relief in regard to the home, and pipeline company appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed, considering the use to which the pipeline company had put the easement, removal of trees was permissible but relocation of the mobile home would not be ordered.
In re Route Permit for Construction of Substation and a High Voltage Transmission Line in Dakota County, Minnesota , (Ct.App. Minn., March 14, 2006). City and citizen's group sought review of Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's (MEQB) decision to grant a route permit to electric companies to construct a high-voltage transmission line and a new substation. The Court of Appeals held that evidence supported MEQB's choice of a route for transmission line, despite the large number of trees to be removed in a park on the selected route.
City of San Diego v. Superior Court, (Ct.App. Cal., Feb. 28, 2006). Injured passenger and surviving relatives of passenger who had died when car in which they were riding was struck by participants in an illegal street race brought action against racers and city, alleging that city was liable for dangerous condition of public property, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, in part because trees cast shadows in poor nighttime illumination. City sought summary judgment, arguing the street on which the accident occurred was not in a dangerous condition. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that city could not be held liable since roadway where race was held was not inherently defectve when used in a lawful manner, and there was no evidence connecting absense of adequate lighting on the road to racers' conduct.
O’Brien v. Schenectady (Sup.Ct.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2006). Pedestrian brought action against city for injuries she received when she stepped into hole in ground — caused by buried tree stump — while walking through city park. The Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict for the city, holding that city's conduct burying the stump, which rotted over a 75-year period, at most amounted to nonfeasance and could not be said to constitute act of affirmative negligence.
Roberson v. Kunzli (Super.Ct. Conn., Feb. 9, 2006). Landowners brought action against vendor, easement holder, and tree cutter, alleging breach of contract, trespass, conversion, and unfair trade practices after tree cutter and his employees entered land and cut down trees in excess of easement. The Superior Court held that vendor did not make any contractual promise not to enter the property without permission and cut down trees; the complaint stated causes of action for trespass and conversion; and landowners were not in a consumer, competitor, or business relationship with defendants such that they could maintain unfair trade practices claim.
Boyce v. Cassese (S.Ct. Ala., Jan. 13, 2006). Purchasers of home located adjacent to golf club brought action against vendors, golf club, and title companies, alleging numerous causes of action after discovering the existence of an agreement between vendors and golf club which allowed golf club to use the property in connection with golf tournament. The Circuit Court granted golf course's motions for summary judgment, and purchasers appealed. The Supreme Court held that the agreement between golf club and vendors which allowed golf club to use land in connection with golf tournament was an easement rather than a license; the statute of limitations on purchasers' fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent suppression claims against vendors began to run when purchasers obtained title to the property; a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether vendors breached warranty in deed by failing to disclose encumbrance created by agreement with golf club precluded summary judgment on claim for breach of warranty deed; the agreement between golf course and vendors precluded purchasers of property from maintaining trespass claim against golf club; and a genuine issue of material fact as to whether title companies breached the title insurance policy because that policy did not reveal the existence of recorded agreement precluded summary judgment for title companies on breach-of-contract claim.
Patterson v. Holleman (Ct.App. Miss., Dec. 13, 2005). Property owners brought action against neighboring property owners requesting permanent injunction against neighbors to prevent their use of quarter-acre parcel of land, damages for intentional trespass, removal of dirt and trees, and punitive damages. The Chancery Court found that quarter-acre parcel belonged to property owners, issued a permanent injunction to prevent neighbors from using or crossing the quarter-acre, and awarded property owners damages and costs. The Chancery Court also ordered broker to fully indemnify neighbors for all damages assessed against them and to provide neighbors with ingress and egress to their property within 30 days. Property owners moved for a new trial or an amendment of the judgment as to damages, and broker moved for a new trial. The Chancery Court denied the post-trial motions. Property owners and broker appealed and appeals were consolidated. The Court of Appeals held that property owners' damages were limited to statutory remedy for wrongful removal of trees; property owners were not entitled to lost wages and travel expenses as costs; property owners were not entitled to additional punitive damages; neighbors did not adversely possess the quarter-acre parcel; and neighbors' driveway was not fully within the county road right of way.
Holt v. Hegwood , (Ct.App.Wis., Oct. 4, 2005). Tenant's guest, who was injured and suffered property damage when tree limb fell on him and his car, filed action against landlord, landlord's liability insurer, and others for negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, and violation of safe-place statute. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on claims for public nuisance and violation of safe-place statute. On appeal, Court of Appeals held that a city ordinance deeming hazardous trees a public nuisance and prohibiting property owners from maintaining such trees did not create private right of action; the landlord did not violate ordinance; the tree from which the branch fell did not constitute a public nuisance; and the landlord did not violate Wisconsin’s safe-place statute.
Zipperer v. County of Santa Clara (Ct.App. Cal., Sept. 30, 2005). Property owners sued county for negligence and other causes of action, alleging that shade from trees growing on county’s adjoining property caused their solar home to malfunction. The Solar Shade Control Act provides limited protection to owners of solar collectors from shading caused by trees on adjacent properties, but the Act permits local jurisdictions to exempt themselves from its operation, and the County had done so.
Recent Neighbor Law Cases
Trask v. Nozisco (Ct.App. Colo., March 9, 2006). Landowner filed quiet title and abuse of process action against adjacent owner, and adjacent owner counterclaimed for adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and trespass, joining other landowners as third-party defendants. The District Court found that adjacent owner had obtained title to certain land through adverse possession and prescriptive easements to dirt drive and parking area, and dismissed other claims against adjacent owner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that evidence did not support finding that adjacent owner had possession of three triangular parcels adjacent to her cabin for requisite statutory period; a barrier established for purpose of interrupting adverse claimant's use was effective to defeat claim of prescriptive easement, although it was in place for only a few days before the adverse landowner removed it; the adjacent landowner obtained prescriptive easement of parking area; an abuse of process action was dismissed prematurely; and the adjacent landowner did not state claim for trespass.
