In most states if the property line passes through the trunk of the tree - it is a co-owned tree. I'm sure most of you have seen large oaks (we're talking 3 foot diameter) that have a nicely defined straight-sided trunk that flares out as it approaches the ground. In fact, they often have "aerial roots" that are part of the flared-out, above-ground base of the tree (sometimes called the crown.) If the property line does not cross the straight part of the trunk but does cross the large aerial roots, would you consider this a shared ownership tree?
My understanding is that the boundary must pass through the trunk to be a common owned tree.
In this litigus society, EVERYTHING can be challenged. (Even the spelling of litigious) can be challenged!) ~) N
Simple solution:
.
I'm stumped as well. It would make for a challenging search to find a court case in your State answering that very question.
My thought would be that the main stem of the trunk would be the critical element in the decision as to co-ownership/responsibility. However, if someone stumbled over an aerial root on your side of the fence, I would not expect them to sue the adjourner unless they use the "shotgun" approach and are suing everyone imaginable and unimaginable.
I think you guys are right about the trunk as the stem. There's a lot of interesting twists on this topic. My client owns a native (didn't plant) tree that overhangs a cabin. I'm just being retained to determine who owns the tree. For once, a client is hoping his property comes short of a tree because he feels he'll have to pay to have the overhanging limbs removed. He had an expert look at the tree who reports it is in excellent health. I am not a lawyer but I believe that even if he owns the tree he would only have to pay to remove a limb that is part of a diseased tree and that the adjoiner can have limbs overhanging his property cut but at his expense and only if it will not cause the death of the tree.
Does your license entitle you to declare who owns what?
I would show the location of the tree in relation to the boundary and leave it at that and/or give your client a recommendation on what to do next.
Establishing ownership is a question of title, lawyers and title companies give title opinions.
> Does your license entitle you to declare who owns what?
>
> I would show the location of the tree in relation to the boundary and leave it at that and/or give your client a recommendation on what to do next.
>
> Establishing ownership is a question of title, lawyers and title companies give title opinions.
Typical "surveyor in a box" approach, Mr. Harris. I agree that, if an expertise in title matters is not within the purview of the individual, then that individual shouldn't be offering opinions about those matters. However... there's no reason to think that an expert surveyor cannot also achieve an expertise in title matters. In fact, most surveyor I know have more expertise in title matters than many title officers and lawyers. That's not to say that "all surveyors" are or should be "title experts." Quite often, they are.
JBS
PS. As far as the tree question goes, it depends upon your jurisdiction and varies considerably. There are a few general rules that are prevalent, but there's nothing to prevent you from doing the research and finding out the answer. That's how you gain expertise.
>..If the property line does not cross the straight part of the trunk but does cross the large aerial roots, would you consider this a shared ownership tree?
The word "ownership" I would avoid using. I would use shared interest instead. To use "ownership" I think one would have to know the full history of the tree. Such as who bought the sapling, who planted it and under what circumstances it all happened, if that even took place, to declare ownership.
If the base of an Apple tree is two feet inside a fence line but it's limbs hang over the fence into the neighbors land, who has the right to take the fruit off of the overhanging limbs? I believe in California that fruit remains the property of the person who has the base of the tree on their land until the fruit drops from the limbs into the neighbors land, then the neighbor can harvest the fallen fruit.
California has limb laws, other states probably do as well.
As far as the question goes, my answer would be No.
I hope that any surveyor that is giving title opinions are charging for their services or is it that they are giving that for free as a part of the survey.
When I place deed references on my paperwork, it is not always that for current owners. It is the proper reference to the last correct property description on public record. It is surprising how many deeds contain an incorrect description of the property I am surveying. For some reason the latest survey is skipped and the never recorded to correct errors.
I do 99.9% land surveying and I rarely actually determine if there may be any other claims to the property or if their deed is valid. I will research to find all or any rights for use, but never to check all sources of possible heirs or agreements that are not in the deed records. I do not search for wills or family trees to decide who gets what and/or how much in a partition.
A few clients will ask me to search and see if any is out there to affect their claims and that is a rare request around here outside something for personal purposes or is part of some project to obtain right of way or lease.
BTW, this is my fall back occupation that I did back in the 70s on turnkey projects for electric utilities where we ran records, contacted owners, staked for clearing, made structure locations and most everything except bought and or negotiated for the right to use the land.
I haven't been able to secure an underwriter either.
😉
> I hope that any surveyor that is giving title opinions are charging for their services or is it that they are giving that for free as a part of the survey.
>
I'd sure hope that anyone providing professional opinions would be charging for their services! It seems that most surveyors are "giving that for free," especially on the toughest jobs. (Those are the jobs we loose the most money on, right?) Well, the tough jobs are the one which require a greater level of knowledge, skill and expertise than the simple ones. Why shouldn't a surveyor be making tons more money on the tough jobs? It took me years to figure out how.
>
> I haven't been able to secure an underwriter either.
>
Having an opinion on the ownership of property is in no way connected with "insuring" that opinion.
>
JBS
