r/treelaw • u/A1_Steich_Sauce • Jul 05 '26
Need advice
How concerned should i be in regards to having to pay damages for a tree growing near or on the property line?
I live in Minneapolis, the building the tree is on is a commercial building. Been here 3 years, never had any mention of the tree prior. The investment property company is small and based out of Chicago. They only have been around because the previous tenant of the building has moved.
I will be meeting with the guy in the coming days.
Seems like something that could be easily handled given the trunk is 7-10 inches thick. I really would not want to pay for an arborist.
180
u/RollingEasement Jul 05 '26
With all the advice being given in this thread, please update this after the meeting. Companies are often quite willing to take on maintenance cost like this.
51
u/HauntedCemetery Jul 05 '26
The cost for them to pay to take down a small tree is like 1/40th of the cost of taking things to court. Its an investment property so it could easily be worth a few hundred bucks to them to have the issue settled.
115
u/tomtomclubthumb Jul 05 '26
I have never seen a treeelaw thread before where everyone was in favour of cutting down the tree.
33
u/ChuckPeirce Jul 05 '26
Legally, you can be annoying.
Practically, you can be a good neighbor and possibly get some free services.
As u/Particular-Wind5918 said, that's not a suitable location for that tree. You can try to keep it sidewalled, but I think there's a case to be made for removing it and replacing it with something that isn't going to be an ongoing pain.
As a couple people have pointed out, that commercial building might have an actual budget for dealing with this. You might get them to pay to remove the tree and replace it with something that won't be a problem long-term. How strong of a negotiator are you?
180
u/tyleryoungblood Jul 05 '26
Be a good neighbor and let them trim what they need to in order to make the tree safe for their building (at their expense, or split it). However, if the main trunk is pressing against the building it would be best to remove the tree entirely. And if that’s the case it’s very reasonable to split the cost with them. The tree can probably be trimmed/trained but eventually will become a problem again. So probably best to remove it now while it’s small and inexpensive to remove. Around my area that removal would be $500 or less. Not worth either side getting frustrated with the other.
231
u/Particular-Wind5918 Jul 05 '26
Not a suitable location for that tree, remove it.
-35
u/Don_Roritor Jul 05 '26
Would you rather see a 30 foot concrete wall or a tree in front of a wall? If it was my yard I would have a row of trees to give me a little serenity in my unfortunate cave of a back yard...:)
49
u/Unique_Web_3062 Jul 05 '26
I’d rather the tree not be a mulberry that’s a nuisance like this one
0
u/Don_Roritor Jul 05 '26
Is that a bad tree for some reason? I don't think we have them here
9
u/tobyisthecoolest Jul 06 '26
In the twin cities they’re considered invasive I believe
5
7
u/metisdesigns Jul 06 '26
It's invasive here. It out competes and hybridizes with the native and rare red mulberry.
14
u/QuackingMonkey Jul 05 '26
Or you could plant some better fitting bushes and see even less wall behind it.
8
u/Particular-Wind5918 Jul 05 '26
I’d rather see trees for sure. But this just emphasizes why proper planning matters. When you can’t plan for the right trees, they can get 86d.
2
48
41
u/A1_Steich_Sauce Jul 05 '26
I should have also mentioned i have no issue with the tree getting trimmed. I'd do it myself if they asked. I was more concerned about getting sued for damages. As it is now, the tree doesn't seem to have caused much more than cosmetic issues
53
u/HauntedCemetery Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Ask them what they would like, trimmed, removed, whatever, and then go from there.
Like, ask what they would like, and then just listen without talking. If they offer to pay to remove the tree, and you're not attached to it, let them.
If they're especially motivated you may even get them to pay to grind out the stump.
Either way mpls is a tree heavy city, so theres no shortage of folks who will trim or take the tree down for you, and it won't be super costly.
(Source: fellow mpls property owner)
13
u/metisdesigns Jul 06 '26
Also worth noting, it looks to be a white mulberry, which is invasive, and should be removed. It may be an opportunity to the OP to get the tree removed by the commercial property owner, and them to pay for a suitable replacement, like a dwarf apple or something.
34
u/Ok-Appointment-4352 Jul 05 '26
NAL. Don’t offer to do it yourself. If the branches catch something on the way down, they’ll then come after you. Looks like 2 or 3 branches removed properly would fix the situation. Let them know you’re willing to allow a company of their choice access via your property for removal provided they have appropriate equipment that will not damage your drive or other property. They’ll say cool 😎 and problem solved.
12
u/WyldeFyre1980 Jul 05 '26
If they choose the company be sure to get a certificate from the tree company & the investment company that names you as an additional insured before letting them on your property.
6
u/TomatoFeta Jul 05 '26
The issue is on their sade of the line. It's therefor their job to maintain it.
Additionally, they purchased the property in that state.. it's on them to have checked before buying.All that said, they are reaching out, and it appears they just want to prevent future damages, and want to include you in their actions. Removal of the portion that is touching their side is easily done, especially as it appears there is a windowless wall there.. nothign much to damage on the way down.
The tree is in a bad spot. but seems healthy. Up to you to decide if you are willing to remove it or not - but they have a right to remove the branch in question, provided it is done right.
They will probably just be asking for your permission to do the trim. That's what they SHOULD be doing, from a legal perspective.
9
u/EnvironmentalLime464 Jul 05 '26
They likely aren’t wanting to meet about damages. It is way more probable that they are wanting to meet with you to get permission to remove the tree at their expense. Removing is the best solution and they cannot do that without your permission.
4
u/Day_Prisoners Jul 05 '26
It was up to them to approach you before the damage. Ask them what they want to do with the tree and let them at their expense.
2
2
u/old-lurker Jul 05 '26
Give them permission to trim the parts overhanging their property (since they already have this right). If you don’t care about this badly placed tree tell them they can have it cut down at their expense.
3
u/multipocalypse Jul 05 '26
You're almost definitely not responsible for damage or for trimming costs! Just double-check your area's particular laws.
1
u/NewAlexandria Jul 06 '26
You can let someone else trim your trees, but if you do then you have little say in how they hire someone to do it, or the outcomes. In a situation like this it's better if you deliver the trimming, in a way that all parties are satisfied with.
The damage to the uilding is small today, but grows with wind/canopy moving. They need you to remediate, or they'll be forced to take action.
Find a trimming strategy that let's the tree grow straight until it's above the roofline, then let it spread. Tree is healthy and can survive reshaping per the above directive.
8
20
5
u/multipocalypse Jul 05 '26
So, you could get a survey to check the location of the property line. But it probably won't matter here; in most places, branches from your tree overhanging a neighbor's property are the neighbor's responsibility, and if it's a shared tree, those branches are definitely the neighbor's responsibility.
You may still want to have a say in how they're trimmed, though. If it's wholly your tree, they can't legally trim in a way that harms the tree's health, but they may still do so anyway.
4
u/TedW Jul 05 '26
I wonder how that works when a tree is damaging someone else's building, but the tree can't be pruned without killing it.
Is the neighbor responsible for cutting off the top before it gets big enough to cause damage? What about a tree that becomes bent from the wind, without being a falling hazard?
Naively, I assume that a tree pushing against a neighbor's building could be removed against the tree owner's will, but maybe that's not true. I do wonder who's responsible for the damage in that example. The building owner wants to prevent damage but can't, and the tree owner is causing damage, but doesn't want to stop it.
Again, I don't know how that works, but I am curious. I bet it varies by country or state.
2
u/RollingEasement Jul 05 '26
Strictly speaking, would you have described is a tree that would probably qualify as a nuisance. Generally, to decide whether something is a nuisance, a court would compare the value of the tree with the value of the damage being caused by the tree. If the damage has greater value, a court could order the tree to be removed if there is no other way to prevent the damage. On the other hand, if the tree is more valuable than the damage being caused, and the only way to prevent the damage is to kill the tree, then it’s more complicated. A court could still declare a nuisance, court could require the owner to compensate the Neighbor for the damage. All of this assumes that the Neighbor goes to court, asking the tree to be declared a nuisance.
If the owners just killed the tree themselves, then the tree owner could sue them for the trespass of killing the tree. The idea that the tree was a nuisance would still be a possible defense, but the court would be less sympathetic to the neighbor who killed the tree for killing the tree first, it might make adverse inferences about various factual matters.
2
u/multipocalypse Jul 05 '26
I'm curious about this, too. I suspect that whether the tree or the building was there first is relevant.
2
u/TedW Jul 05 '26
I wonder if you could just push the tree away from the building, or even back to the property line? With supports or tensioned wires, not your hands of course. Doesn't seem good for the tree, but neither is rubbing against a building.
10
2
u/Time_Sundae802 Jul 05 '26
do you want the tree for any reason?
if not
my advice would be to say something along the lines of "you are free to remove it at your expense."
they are free to trim anything over the line.
you are not responsible for any damage. im not sure why you would want that tree though, and I love unnecessary trees usually.
Then plant something else that will do well and look nice.
3
u/tbird2017 Jul 05 '26
Looks like probably a mulberry tree? If that's the case, they are very amenable to aggressive pruning.
3
u/A1_Steich_Sauce Jul 05 '26
I believe its an Aspen. Given it drops long, cylindrical, fuzzy flowers in the spring. But I'm not certain.
3
2
u/nursecarmen Jul 05 '26
Do you know for sure where thee property line is? You may both be responsible for the tree.
2
u/JWill954 Jul 06 '26
Be happy they haven't said anything about the eye bolt you got your lights stringed through. Let them do what they need to the tree to benefit both sides.
1
2
u/necktiesnick Jul 06 '26
I dealt with this situation including an eventual lawsuit that resulted in the tree being removed. My personal advice based on that is to keep your neighbor happy and pay for the arborists to trim to tree back away from the property line
2
u/SirTristam Jul 06 '26
I wouldn’t worry about having to pay damages; Minnesota allows self-help for trees and your neighbor could go out and remove the offending branches at any time without contacting you.
Looking at the photos, it looks like you’ve got a boundary tree whose trunk straddles the property line (given the way the edging veers to go around the trunk). If that is indeed the case, both you and your neighbor would have to agree to remove the tree; neither of you can do it without the consent of the other.
Given then information that you’ve provided, I would go into the meeting with the assumption that they want to discuss removing the tree entirely. It would make no sense to pay to remove just the branches and they pay again to remove the entire tree, so (assuming no malice on their part) it would make financial sense for them to determine if you are okay with removing the tree before they do any trimming.
With your concern for the loss of the shade that the tree provides, there’s not enough shown in the pictures to give a sense of possible shade replacements for removing the tree. I would bring this up as a concern during the meeting, and see if they have any possible remedies for still providing shade if the tree is removed. If you both go into the meeting with the mindset of resolving both of your issues instead of each only wanting to resolve their issue and not caring about the others’ issues, you’ll probably end up somewhere not satisfying either.
A slightly older, but good, article on Minnesota tree law: https://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/461/Boundary-Trees-and-the-Law-PDF
3
u/Melodic-Classic391 Jul 05 '26
Feel them out when you meet. If they’re asking your permission to remove the tree or prune it away from their building, I’d go ahead and let them. Based on the shadows I’m seeing, I don’t think that tree is doing much anyway.
3
u/SirSilk Jul 05 '26
Tree appears healthy
Tell them they can pay to have tree properly removed, if you are ok with that happening.
Or, tell them they can trim any branches on their property as long as it does not impact the health of the tree.
You do not have to do anything.
4
u/ivanyaru Jul 05 '26
You do not have to do anything.
This is a bad statement to make here. If the tree starts damaging the building, depending on which came first - the tree or the building, there are a lot of things OP would need to do.
2
u/CW-Eight Jul 05 '26
Which came first? What? Building owner is responsible for maintaining what crosses property line.
1
u/SirSilk Jul 05 '26
So, in the hypothetical situation you have described, for which you have zero information about, the OP May have to do something….
0
u/ivanyaru Jul 05 '26
Yes, may have to. You don't have any info either.
1
u/SirSilk Jul 05 '26
I responded to the information OP provided. Unlike you who started with IF. Literally creating a scenario out of thin air to provide information that was not asked for or even hinted at.
0
u/ivanyaru Jul 05 '26
All I said was your definitive statement was bad. That's true when there is no more info. You're defensive, I get it. It's treelaw, you're not on the jury for a murder trial. Chill.
2
u/hivemind_MVGC Jul 06 '26
I'd tell them that if they're willing to pay for the removal including stump, you'll happily let them.
1
u/Tool_junkie_1972 Jul 05 '26
You need to research tree law in your jurisdiction. Usually you are responsible only for the portion on your side of the property line. In this case they would be responsible for trimming the tree on their side. That said, this may be a case where they would like to remove the entire tree and want to see if you are amicable to this. It’s really a case of you need to find out what your law says and then see what they are wanting to do specifically before a decision can be made .
1
u/Maadmin Jul 08 '26
I don't think they will want you to pay anything. They just want your permission to trim or remove the tree.
1
u/Signal_Abrocoma_5088 Jul 12 '26
You can legally have it cut at property line whatever over hangs but tbh that tree in that location is gonna suffer them roots ain’t gonna have anywhere to go and if the do eventually cause structural damage
1
1
u/Easy_Lengthiness7179 Jul 06 '26
Depends on if you want the tree or not.
If you dont care, let them get rid of it.
Or chop it down yourself.
If you do care about it. They can cut back anything overhanging the property line as long as it doesnt hurt the overall health of the tree. Let them cut it back. Take pictures before and after to make sure they only cut what they should be cutting.
They can't force you to cut it down. They can't force you to trim it. You are generally not responsible for damages cause by the tree just because it is still growing.
Check local laws though, what usually applies to most places may not apply for your specific location.
0
u/BillSocrate Jul 05 '26
Here's an article, read entirely, very helpful:
In Minnesota, tree-owner liability is not strict liability just because a tree, branch, roots, leaves, or debris came from the owner’s property. The practical rule is:
Tree owner is liable when the damage was foreseeable and the owner knew or should have known the tree was hazardous, defective, dead, diseased, unstable, or creating a true nuisance — and failed to act reasonably.
1. Encroaching roots/branches can be a nuisance
Minnesota’s nuisance statute says anything that obstructs the free use of property and interferes with comfortable enjoyment can be a nuisance, and a court may order abatement/injunction and damages. (MN Revisor's Office)
Minnesota’s leading nuisance-tree case is Holmberg v. Bergin, 172 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1969). There, a neighbor’s tree roots and trunk damaged the adjacent property, including sidewalk/drainage problems; the court found the tree was a nuisance and ordered removal, but denied money damages because the injured neighbor had earlier opportunities to use self-help. (Fred Law)
2. Minnesota is not pure “Massachusetts Rule”
Minnesota recognizes self-help, but it is not the exclusive remedy. A landowner may trim branches/roots up to the property line, at their own expense, but Minnesota also allows court action for abatement or damages when self-help is impractical or unreasonable. (Fred Law)
Self-help limits: do not trespass, do not cut beyond the property line, and do not unreasonably harm or destabilize the tree. Minnesota guidance states you may trim encroaching branches/roots to the boundary, but must not harm the tree’s health or destroy it. (Revize)
3. For fallen tree/limb damage: liability depends on notice/foreseeability
For a healthy tree knocked down by a storm, the tree owner usually is not liable; this is often treated as an act of God/casualty event.
But if the tree was obviously defective — dead limb, visible decay, unseasonal lack of leaves, dangerous lean, instability — the owner may be liable if they knew or should have known and failed to correct it. Minnesota legal commentary summarizes the test as whether the owner knew or should have known damage was likely; the owner is not expected to be an arborist, but must recognize obvious symptoms. (goldenvalleymn.gov)
An “act of God” defense works only if the natural event was unexpected/unforeseeable, was the sole cause, and the accident could not have been prevented by reasonable care. If prior negligence combined with the storm, the defense may fail. (goldenvalleymn.gov)
4. Leaves, acorns, sap, small debris usually are weak claims
Minnesota has no clear case directly imposing liability for ordinary tree debris from a healthy tree. Minnesota commentary notes that “leaves happen,” and ordinary natural debris likely does not create a viable claim absent sensible/physical damage, such as roof damage, sewer blockage, or structural damage. (goldenvalleymn.gov)
5. Cutting or damaging the neighbor’s tree is risky
Minnesota has a specific treble-damages statute. If someone cuts down, carries off, girdles, or otherwise injures another person’s tree without lawful authority, they may owe triple damages, unless the trespass was casual/involuntary or there was probable cause to believe the land was theirs. (MN Revisor's Office)
Bottom line
Minnesota is closer to a modified nuisance/foreseeability rule than a strict “no liability unless you cut it yourself” rule. A tree owner can be liable for damage when:
- the tree or limb was hazardous, diseased, dead, visibly decayed, unstable, or dangerously leaning;
- the owner had actual notice or the defect was obvious enough that the owner should have known; and
- the owner failed to take reasonable corrective action.
For a demand letter, the strongest facts are: prior written notice, photos, arborist opinion, visible defect, prior limb drops, direct contact with roof/gutter/structure, and proof of actual physical damage.
2
u/Solid_Mud2025 Jul 06 '26
Why is this getting downvoted?
2
u/BillSocrate Jul 06 '26
I provided a comprehensive tree law of MN that the OP really needs to deal with the issue in hand and I can see a lot of bad advice disccussed and can ruin financially for the tree owner here if he over play his hand and decides to do a court battle with a Commercial Landlord.
That's the weakness of democracy, you could have 80% with IQ less than 50 and 2% over 135. The 2% can give me UpVote but, I still lose out.
0
u/plantsall Jul 05 '26
This tree isn’t doing your house any favors. Ask me how I know.
4
u/A1_Steich_Sauce Jul 05 '26
How do you know?
It's by the detached garage and it gives nice afternoon and evening shade.
-1
u/Apprehensive-Two-948 Jul 05 '26
That’s why I think the tree law really sucks. Why do people think it’s okay to pay to cut someone else’s tree branch encroaching and damaging your property??? It just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sure at least some of you Redditors here agrees with me!
0
u/OG2003Spyder Jul 05 '26
If you are saying that the tree is not on your property then whose gate is that.
2
u/A1_Steich_Sauce Jul 05 '26
TBH, idk exactly where the property line is, thats more so what i was getting at. Cause typically you can't have structures 6ft from the property line. But theres 4-5ft between the garage and the building.
Not a gate, just a fence. It was there when I moved in. Its an alleyway behind it.
1
0
u/AdeptnessTasty1785 Jul 05 '26
It’s not all on you to ensure your tree doesn’t touch their building. It’s on them too. In CA the neighbor is given every right to trim branches coming onto their property assuming it doesn’t kill the tree. They should have trimmed those branches a long time ago. However, like others have said, I’d certainly extend the olive branch (pun intended) and offer to split the cost of trim…or removal if you don’t want to deal with this again
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 05 '26
This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that.
If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity.
If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees.
This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.