Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Who pays for tree trimming?
I have read that in California, if the limbs of a non-boundary tree extend into a neighbor's yard, the neighbor, not the owner of the tree, is responsible for trimming them, and that it must be done according to some sort of existing guidelines, e.g. it must not kill the tree or cause it to topple.
However, as a non-attorney, I am unable to locate the statute for verification. My city does not have a local ordinance in regard to this.
Can anyone direct me to the applicable statute, or better yet, e-mail the text of it to me?
Thank you.
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Who pays for tree trimming?
Your understanding is not quite correct. A non-boundary tree belongs to the landowner upon whose land it grows. Civil Code section 833. When the roots or limbs extend across the boundary, the neighbor MAY (not must) cut or trim the roots or branches up to the boundary, since they are considered a trespass. The cutting must be done in a non-negligent manner.
The latter rules come from case law (i.e., they are judge-made and not statutory), however they are essentially an embodiment of the rules of neighborliness and common sense.
The lead case seems to be Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th at page 1786.
Although I'm not sure, I would guess that the owner would be responsible for the cost if the tree limbs were removed as a matter of safety, but if it were a purely esthetic matter then it is less clear whether the owner or neighbor should bear the cost.
There is an additional rule. Whenever the roots or limbs become 'noxious,' e.g. cause damage to walkways, foundations, pipes etc., the neighbor may also have an action for private nuisance as well as for trespass, and along with it greater latitude in taking corrective measures.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
