Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
tree roots and sewer lines
We have two trees that our
neighbors state have caused damage
to their sewer line. They've replaced
their sewer line and are now suing
us for a minimum of $75K for
negligence, nuisance, trespassing, as
well as the $15.6K for their new line.
In the 35 years as neighbors, this is
the first complaint of a sewer
problem in their 120 year old line
since the trees were planted (with a
permit) 30 years ago. We have an
arborist's report stating that trees
are not malicious but are
opportunistic and find nutrients from
leaky sewer lines. Could we really be
liable for these claims considering 1)
there was no precedence to request
funds for cleaning out the line due to
clogging of roots, 2) the life span of a
terra cotta line is around 50 years
and not 120 years, 3) the sewer line
must have been damaged already for
roots to invade the line, and 4) we
have maintained these trees every
year and so question their claim of
negligence.
In addition, we will probably be
required to remove the trees.
However, the city of San Francisco
will not allow this since the trees are
healthy. Where does that put us?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: tree roots and sewer lines
As to the question of whether the court might issue an injunction requiring you to remove the trees, the court's injunction would trump any local ordinance or regulation enacted by the City and County of San Francisco. (The City could intervene if it really wanted the trees to remain, but such intervention is highly unlikely.) Your best defense is your non-negligence, although that will not necessarily defeat a trespass legal theory. The arborist's report could be very helpful but it probably will not win the case for you by itself.
If you still need an attorney, I have experience in real property litigation involving negligence, nuisance and trespass theories. Best of luck.
Re: tree roots and sewer lines
I don't think a judge or jury is going to be very sympathetic with these neighbors....while I agree that the tree roots constitute a trespass and perhaps a private nuisance, the damages being sought are quite excessive, in my opinion. A lawyer with experience in defending this kind of suit (not me!) should be able to defend, or settle, with a much more favorable result. I would be inclined to admit a nominal trespass and offer $1 as damages, but to deny any causation between the roots and the need to replace an already-shot sewer line. You were on the right track to hire the arborist; now look for a defense lawyer with experience specific to this problem. Also check to see whether your homeowner's insurance covers this; they probably should assume your defense.
Related Questions & Answers
-
Estopple What is the best defense against an estopple defense. Asked 10/29/07, 2:33 am in United States California Real Estate and Real Property
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
