The consequences of cutting down or trimming your neighbor’s trees and shrubs without your neighbor’s prior consent (and get that consent in writing folks) can be legally and financially crippling. The full extent of the punitive nature of the law for trimming and cutting on your neighbor’s foliage is exemplified in the recent case of Fulle v. Kanani, (Cal. Ct. of Appeal Case No. B271240 (January 31, 2017).
In Fulle, Kanani, without his neighbor Fulle’s permission, hired workers to cut down the limbs and branches of six trees located on Fulle’s property. Fulle sued for trespass and negligence and sought damage for injury to the trees, restoration costs, damages for annoyance and discomfort, and enhanced damages under California Civil Code section 3346(a). Section 3346(a) gives the Court discretion to treble damages to compensate for the actual detriment from the “wrongful injuries to timber, trees or underwood upon the land of another.” The jury awarded Fulle $27,500 for damage to the trees, $20,000 for the cost of repairing the harm, and $30,000 for past annoyance, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of the real property, inconvenience and emotional distress. The trial court trebled Fulle’s economic damages, but declined to apply the multiplier to the award of damages for past annoyance and discomfort. Fulle appealed the failure to treble these damages.
The Court of Appeals held annoyance and discomfort damages resulting from injuries to trees may be doubled or tripled under the timber trespass statutes. It further held that where, as in Fulle, the jury finds willful and malicious conduct by the defendant, the trial court must award double damages and has discretion to award treble damages for annoyance and discomfort.
Consider this, if you want to trim your neighbor’s trees because they block your view – the total damage Kanani caused to the trees and the cost to restore them was $47,500. Based on the holding of the Court of Appeals, Kanani now faces the prospect of a judgment of $262,500 because he trimmed Fulle’s trees.
Seems to us Kanani would have gladly paid Fulle up to $47,500 for permission to cut her trees before he cut them and could have saved well over $215,000, when attorneys’ fees and costs are taken into account had he known this would be the outcome. We also speculate that Fulle would have been quite happy to receive less than $47,500 for someone to trim those trees properly. Suffice it to say we do not think they will be the best of neighbors any time soon. Just think, a negotiation through legal counsel before Kanani took unilateral action would likely have satisfied both of them without malice or ill will and may have cost less than the cost to trim the trees.
The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.
You’re $30,000 too high — the maximum award is now $232,500 not $262,500. And how do you know Ms. Fulle would have let Dr. Kanani “trim” her trees if he had asked. His workers butchered her trees. And they were doing just fine before Dr. Kanani decided on hiw own to cut them down.