Here's one I have not seen before. The deed describes the boundary as running around the circumference of the beech tree, and specifically exclude the tree from being within Lot A. Would this function similarly to a riparian boundary, with the lot line continuing to run along the tree's circumference as it grows? The plan it refers to even has a detail of the tree and lot line.
On the face of the deed, the tree is explicitly excluded from the conveyance. I can't cite precedence but, that's pretty cut and dried and I would consider the boundary along the current circumference of the tree (northern edge).
To venture a guess: the neighbor was accommodating a request by Gordon to remedy the encroaching slate terrace but, they never wanted Gordon (or successors) to have any say in removal of the tree.
I do not know of any case law on this but it certainly would be interesting. I own this half of the tree and I want it to be cut down, and the adjoiner who owns the other half wants it to live forever.?ÿ
I venture to bet, that the boundary grows with the tree, but like I said it would be interesting to hear what a judge would rule. Without case law to support either side, I would do my best to figure out intent of the language and decide accordingly.?ÿ
?ÿ
The conveyance clearing up the apparent encroachment does not include the tree.?ÿ The precedent is that the intention of the grantor is found in the written Deed and in this case it is clear the tree is not included.
Since it is apparent that the intention was to exclude the tree then the boundary moves outwards with the tree until it crosses the north line of Lot A, at that point it becomes jointly owned.
The question that comes to my mind is what happens, after the tree has maybe doubled in size,?ÿif?ÿ when the tree dies (burns, blows over, gets cut down). Does the blister then straighten out? Probably not, as when a river avulsivly changes course. But some provision for that eventuality could have been added to the description - and possibly there is some clause addressing that issue in the original deed outside of the description.?ÿ I'd like to see that Bk5838/Pg239 deed.
There is a declaratory statement of intent at the end of the description. You really can't read this deed properly without having the deed referenced in that statement....
The question that comes to my mind is what happens, after the tree has maybe doubled in size,?ÿ
if?ÿ when the tree dies (burns, blows over, gets cut down). Does the blister then straighten out? Probably not, as when a river avulsivly changes course. But some provision for that eventuality could have been added to the description - and possibly there is some clause addressing that issue in the original deed outside of the description.?ÿ I'd like to see that Bk5838/Pg239 deed.
?ÿ Here's the deed originally granting "Lot A". No forethought as to what happens after the tree dies.
If the tree is dead but standing it is still owned by the south.?ÿ They can remove it and convert it to personal property.?ÿ I would think at that point the boundary would stay where the outside edge of the tree was formerly located.
If the tree falls north and lands on the north's house then there is liability to the south.
They don't specify if they're referring to the trunk or the dripline.?ÿ Given the size of the conveyance would probably be the dripline, but you could effectively kill the entire tree if you so wished if you own right to the trunk...Could clear upward vertically and sever roots downward = dead tree (probably) Beech trees aren't the most robust against trauma.
The neighbor can cut branches up to the boundary but if they harm or kill the tree then they could be liable.?ÿ If a branch falls and does damage over the boundary the tree owner will be liable if they didn't take reasonable care of the tree.?ÿ This is general, State laws vary on the exact details.
Liable for the cost of the wood right??ÿ So maybe $500 at most??ÿ I guess you could descend the rabbit hole of intrinsic value and the enjoyment of the tree by the property owner, but there's probably case law governing that in every state.
Non-tangent curve, needs more info.?ÿ Why not just write in a deed covenant? Geez.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
This is what you get when you allow a Civil Engineer to think he can survey. The deed does not close worth didley. The deed has 4 South lines (courses 3-6) and does not specify which line it is on. One may correctly assume it is between courses 5 and 6, since they have parallel calls, but the geometry still does not work. Assuming the tree center is on line and using a 2.5' straight line through it the sum total distance E-W is still short of the 69.03' course one call. The actual chord of the arc is 2.45' and a ha'penny. To prove course 1 is correct you need the original N77?ø11'23"E sideline (no original distance on record plan) and that assumes the North and South deeds agreed on it.?ÿ Assuming the 172 Sq.Ft. area is correct it will look something like the plan but at least 2 of the givens need to be corrected, more likely 4. The deed needs to include the tree wrap around as the 6th course, for 7 total.
Paul in PA, PE(CE), PLS
Peter
Don't worry Brookline is just a simple country town with reasonable people. I'm sure they'll never be any litigation.
?ÿ
Hack
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
The description is written in 2 distinct styles, with the beech tree call slapped on, which makes it smell very much of a non-surveyor paste up job.?ÿ?ÿ
