2024 01-09 PC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In the Shade of a Tree Page 2 Reprinted by permission of Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Steve Pihlaja and Lorrie Stromme, March 2002 In Minnesota, the mere presence of a tree trunk on the boundary line does not create a boundary tree or determine ownership. Instead, the court looks at the intention of the neighboring property owners. A tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct.1 For example, adjoining owners who split the costs of pruning and maintain ing a boundary tree or hedge would probably be considered co-owners of the tree or hedge. So, when a broken limb or a tree disease becomes a problem, the co-owners share responsibility for fixing the problem. Nuisance Trees: Encroaching Branches or Roots Branches that overhang your client's property or tree roots that push up a sidewalk or clog a sewer are considered a nuisance. "Anything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance."2 The leading Minnesota case on nuisance trees is Holmberg v. Bergin .3 In that case, a Minneapolis homeowner planted an elm tree within 15 inches of the property line. Over the course of 26 years, the tree grew to be 30 inches in diameter and 75 feet high. The trunk grew across the boundary line, pushing the fence out of alignment. The roots extended into the neighbors' yard and caused the sidewalk to tip toward the house, resulting in a drainage problem in the neighbors' basement. The Holmberg court found that the tree was not a co-owned boundary tree but was a nuisance, because the tree roots obstructed the neighbors' free use and enjoyment of their property. The neighbors sued for monetary damages and an injunction to prune the roots or remove the tree. Experts for both sides acknowledged that corrective action to restore the grade would damage the roots and either kill the tree or make it dangerously unstable. The court ordered the tree cut down, because the alternative -- severe root pruning -- would have weakened the tree or caused the tree to die, endangering the neighbor's home if the tree blew over in a windstorm. The court disallowed money damages, because the