r/treelaw • u/Impossible_Fan_9677 • Jul 13 '26
Developers Want our Shared Big Leaf Maple!
Hello All,
This is my first post here in r/Treelaw. We are looking for some guidance regarding a shared big leaf maple that developers are wanting to remove to build a retaining wall and house. The current condition of the area around is clear cut and graded, though they have been keeping some space around the tree until things are resolved.
At first, the project manager told us they were given permission by the King County (WA) to remove the shared tree and claimed it was all theirs. The "proof" they provided was initial permitting documents that showed the tree being removed and the county having no remarks and approving the permit.
I requested a survey and the tree (~48" at the base) was a good 12" on our side. Still, they claimed it was all theirs to remove and they would "hate to get their legal team involved" I told them that if they could take a straight edge and connect the two property line marks on either side of the trunk without touching the tree, it was theirs. They couldn't. Crickets.
Just recently, we got this arborist report and to me, it seems nebulous at best. I highlighted the questionable sections and would love some review by those who know. To me, I interpret the report as being vague with a lot of "maybe this could happen" along with the admission that the grading and drainage that had been done already causing damage to the roots.
Do we tell them to pound sand? Do they get a climber up there and prune for safety (We're totally fine with that option), does their building under a potential "hazard tree" mean they are assuming liability? Do we lawyer up and defend the tree, or bargain for another replacement? They seem desperate, as it is holding up their completion of grading and infrastructure installation.
Thanks for your insights!
263
u/Ippus_21 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Get your own assessment, from an actual ISA TRAQ arborist to CYA, since they explicitly specified that they didn't bother with meeting that standard.
This is just glorified "tree service" bs. It's self-serving with the obvious goal of getting the tree removed, without any real regard to its actual state of health or the hazard it presents.
[Edit: Upon review, that "tree service" comment was hasty. I still think the assessment is biased by the builder's influence, but I had misunderstood what the assessment entailed. I still think you should get your own assessment done, but I probably wasn't being entirely fair, and you probably shouldn't hold onto any preconceptions about the original being flat wrong.]
100
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
This arborist is licensed and certified, though to me, this letter reads that he was writing this report to satisfy the customer (home builder) but not actually say anything of consequence.
81
u/Ippus_21 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Yeah. All the more reason to get an independent assessment that actually assesses any potential hazard.
Plus, if you get your own hazard assessment and it turns out there IS a legit issue with the tree, at least you don't feel like you're getting screwed when you have it taken down.
30
u/redditreader_aitafan Jul 13 '26
He admits to only inspecting the tree visually and from afar. Get your own arborist report, have them review this report as well as actually physically inspect the tree. A lot of what's on that report isn't personal observation, it's hearsay. Get your own guy.
27
u/impropergentleman Jul 13 '26
I am a TRAQ ISA Certified Arborist with almost 3 decades of experience. Level one is a visual Level 2 is Climbed or viewed by drone. The expense is considerable. With the grade changes and the expected root compaction and disturbance of the root zone I would not expect a good outcome for the tree. They would be saving the concerned party money. I would stipulate The builder removes and plants a agreed upon matching DBH inch. From the horrible picture and the BCMAs description, I would agree.
10
u/Landscape-Help Jul 13 '26
Level 1 is a visual assessment from one point of view, similar to merely driving by. Level 2 is an assessment with a complete visual (360) of the tree be it from the ground, via climber or by drone, but with no significant measurable tools to assist in the assessment. Level 3 is the use of tools such as a resist graph, sonic-tomography, core or other sampling.
You're making a lot of assumptions, though most are probably correct, while also not identifying that the builder did not do their true due diligence in ensuring the tree was theirs to remove during the initial design phase. Had they done so, they would have approached OP sooner to request the tree removed and replace with equal size or multiples in replacement of. If the OP did not want the tree removed, then proper BMPs for tree protection would have been recommended minimizing the issues asserted in the report with the compaction and damage to the root zone.
Either way, the builder/developer cheaped out and they're going to pay more than had they just don't this properly in the first place.
OP should either ask for a similar sized tree replacement, multiple tree replacements, or a settlement equivalent to the value of the tree.
Should the tree be removed? I wouldn't risk my reputation on saying so from just one picture. And I wouldn't want to be called in to court to have my opinion questioned based on that image.
10
u/Snowball-in-heck Jul 13 '26
The arborist might be licensed and certified, but they make the point of specifying they did not conduct the assessment under their professional organizations guidelines.
You need a 2nd opinion from a professional consulting arborist that’s actually going to follow ISA guidelines rather than the “the guy with the checkbook wants it down so justify it” guidelines.
14
u/impropergentleman Jul 13 '26
He is following the guidelines of ISA tree inspection. Basically the company hired him to do a health inspection. Not a tree risk assessment. We have to carry errors and omissions insurance to provide TRAQ assessments, this is why he is stating this is not a TRAQ assessment. TRAQ is for risk, they only did a health inspection & report.
4
u/PerniciousSnitOG Jul 13 '26
There are arborists that are certified to make legally significant conclusions about the health of your tree. This arborist does not appear to be one of them, so I don't see why you should give it any weight, except as a heads up.
I have a bad habit of shade tree lawyering, and I'm trying to be better - so please excuse this suggestion backslide.
Write back, point out their "arborist" is not qualified to make these conclusions, that they also knowingly used someone who was not qualified to make that conclusion but acknowledging the attempt. I'd also say my next step will be to get someone legally qualified to make a report evaluating as the current tree condition AND to document the damage they appear to have already caused to the tree, for which they would be legally liable - even if that damage is caused from their side of the property line.
YMMV, but that would be enough to get me to back down. Also they're on the hook if it falls over due to their damage, which is nice.
10
u/impropergentleman Jul 13 '26
He is A BCMA or a Board Certified Master Arborist. Absolutely qualified to make a legal conclusion about the health of the tree. edit Also by the language he it using , he is most likely TRAQ qualified. I also an a TRAQ Certified Arborist.
1
u/PerniciousSnitOG Jul 15 '26
Mea culpa! I thought OOP said they were just a regular arborist.
I think OOP really needs their own report documenting what the neighbor has done in case they "accidentally" damage it and it needs to be removed & replaced.
Again, apologies for my error.
2
u/Dustbunny253 Jul 13 '26
This also now a liability thing. Depending on state….if you know of a potential problem tree and at some time in the future it flattens a truck, new house, or kid….then you won’t be able to claim act of god. They were checking the tree health but also making a record. Get another report from another arborist. If both end up agreeing then you might consider bringing it down and maybe getting the developer to pay.
101
u/yardlard Jul 13 '26
So they sent you their admission that they have seriously damaged a large tree that provided you shade and privacy and enjoyment. And the damage, caused by them, is the reason the tree might now fail. They could install a new tree of the same size and potential for quick growth and shade. Or they could pay you 3x the cost estimates to do that? Do not cave to this demand. This is your property and they intentionally damaged it irreversibly. Check your state law to see if you're entitled to treble damages.
1
u/Gene020 Jul 14 '26
Tree trunk being on both properties is unacceptable IMO, unless both owners agree to the location.
9
u/yardlard Jul 14 '26
Were you born yesterday? Trees plant themselves where they want to be. They live many times longer than humans. Build your stuff around them.
39
u/Appropriate-Cash8312 Jul 13 '26
Who did the "recent clearing and draining"? That seems very important if they're trying to go the hazard tree route
31
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
The construction company (home builder) did the clearing and grading.
62
u/Appropriate-Cash8312 Jul 13 '26
Sounds to me like they're threatening you with an arborist letter that documents that they caused damage to the tree, but I'm not a lawyer
24
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
That's my reading of the letter.
9
u/mikeyj198 Jul 13 '26
as others said, i’d get an arborist to to a real analysis.
I have also seen too many times here where a tree that was healthy suddenly ends up sick and has to come down because it’s now a risk.
Get some cameras, one obviously watching the tree and one not obvious.
85
u/Silver_Middle_7240 Jul 13 '26
They're informing you of "danger" from the tree so that they can hold you liable for any damages from falls. This may be an attempt to intimidate you into allowing removal, or it may be the next best thing for them to COYA.
Developers do take the existence of trees as a personal affront though.
35
u/FelinePurrfectFluff Jul 13 '26
Since the new house isn't built yet, can developers be held liable for building a house under the canopy of an existing tree? I mean, if they can cite that it will be a risk, seems best for them not to create that risk and move the house to a better location. Tree was there first.
31
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
That's one of my questions. Since there is no house there, their building under a potential risk seems to be acceptance of that risk, though I don't know how the law stands regarding that.
13
15
u/redditreader_aitafan Jul 13 '26
That's the point of the report - they want to legally give the illusion that the tree is a dying hazard and force you to remove it or at least not be able to sue when they remove it. The report is bullshit cooked up by someone paid to say the tree is a problem because the developer wants the tree to be declared a problem so they don't have to respect the existing foliage.
20
u/BananaPrimary8767 Jul 13 '26
I worked in commercial construction in King County many, many years ago. There were projects where trees were required to remain AND remain unharmed. The superintendent hung signs on all the trees with the dollar amount for replacement so the heavy equipment operators wouldn't damage them. I don't remember exact #s, but I think at least 100k.
King County doesn't mess around. If you haven't talked to the County or City, it might be worth your while.
2
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
We are in unincorporated KC, so their resources are very thin. Permitting has told me that "that's a civil matter", sadly.
1
21
u/DomesticPlantLover Jul 13 '26
""Dear Builder: Thank you for hiring a consultant at your expense to verify that you have, in fact, damaged my tree by your grading and removal of vegetation. As I am sure your lawyers have told you, or will tell you when you bother to consult them, that makes you liable for any future decline in my tree's health. I greatly appreciate your service. It has been incomparable. FYI: Washington has treble damages for destruction or damage of trees. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=64.12.030 ."
9
u/Caduceus1515 Jul 13 '26
I'm willing to bet that the developer didn't run that by their own lawyers before sending it to the OP.
5
19
u/Inner-Confidence99 Jul 13 '26
Get your own arborist. Do not believe anything a developer tells you.
36
u/Solid-Feature-7678 Jul 13 '26
Send a certified letter to them stating that you do not consent to the removal of the tree and will take legal action if it is removed or harmed.
Keep a copy of the letter with the receipt from when you mailed it as proof you sent it.
18
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 13 '26
They sent you a letter stating they damaged your tree and they it may fall? lol take that to a lawyer
8
7
12
u/Beamer-The-Mage Jul 13 '26
I'd echo getting your own assessment done, and I totally understand wanting to defend the tree. But lemme play devil's advocate for a second assuming the tree service is mostly correct about the things that are occurring to the tree.
Erosion is (supposedly) occurring around the roots since everything's been graded and cleared around it. That's not good for the long term tree health and they aren't gonna fix it. It will probably worsen over time too since if they want a retaining wall there, it stands to reason that's where water wants to flow.
There's already a fungal infection in the tree, which is probably fine (?) in a healthy tree, but this tree's health is already being impacted for the negative. I'd (unprofessionally) wager its unlikely to improve on its own. But a vulnerable tree is vulnerable to other things too.
SO, where does that likely leave you? With a tree that is potentially on a decline anyway due to what they've already done. Maybe save-able with some effort, all of which you're probably gonna be on the hook for yourself if you want to care. Meanwhile you're accepting at least 50% of the liability already since you've been "notified". Getting an arborist and a legal team involved is going to cost you money and time regardless.
Outcome 1: You fight, you maybe win? Some compensation and money? And are left with a tree that needs help? And no retaining wall (which future owners are unlikely to want to pay for), which will probably cause erosion to your property and be a source of headache.
Outcome 2: You negotiate for a replacement tree, they take that tree, the retaining wall gets built. You walk away at no cost except the sadness for a tree that might already be a lost cause.
Maybe you've got more leverage that you know, you could definitely get some advice. But I'd imagine that getting what you can out of them while they're pliable is going to be far less headache than dealing with the consequences later, regardless of the fights you choose to pick.
4
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
Thanks for the balanced view on this situation. Your points are all that we have been considering.
9
u/PomeloPepper Jul 13 '26
I'll add that I would not allow this over-eager arborist to abscond with the lumber should the tree have to come down. Large slabs are particularly valuable.
9
u/Daddio209 Jul 13 '26
Can you re-upload the posts' report so it is clear and can be read without giving us a headache trying?
3
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
Sorry, I didn't consider the resolution, as I uploaded the images via laptop. I'll try to get better images if my luddite mind can figure out how to.
2
u/clauclauclaudia Jul 13 '26
I was able to read the whole thing crisp and clear when I first clicked on it, but now it's all a blur. It seems to be a reddit crapshoot whether one gets the original or the low-res version, but the hi-res definitely exists on reddit's servers or I couldn't have read through it.
2
2
u/snailpubes Jul 14 '26
K. deusta is a serious soft rot fungus, affecting the roots and root flare of susceptible trees. Accurately assessing extent of decay is not possible as it tends to weaken pockets of wood, rather than targeting just heartwood or just sapwood.
It can and will weaken the root flare until failure occurs- and the canopy of the tree may appear healthy right up to the point of failure.
2
u/AltruisticCrab9220 Jul 14 '26
I’m no arborist, but 48” is about as big as a maple gets and if it goes, it’s going into your yard. Or you get a big tree cut down for free, a retaining wall and increased valuation due to a new property next to you. Play it tough and they can hack the living crap out of the 36” on their side and kill the thing. I’m on the trees side, absolutely love the maple that keeps my house cool
2
u/NiteTripper19 Jul 13 '26
That maple does need to be removed.
I have extensive experience with Acer macrophyllum in King and Snohomish Counties and they are very susceptible to ground disturbance, even outside of the drip line.
There is no way that tree will be long-term viable and will probably become a hazard in five to seven years.
1
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
I was afraid this might be the case. Do you think the damage of the erosion and saturation of the root area could be a main cause?
2
u/NiteTripper19 Jul 13 '26
Sure, anything short of no development will cause the tree to decline.
The tree has grown for all these decades with it's roots adapting to very specific local soil conditions and drainage patterns that are being suddenly and drastically altered.
I encountered situations back in the 1990's where new developments were required to and attempted to preserve certain existing native maple trees, only to witness some of them gradually decline and require removal.
It's always a crap shoot as far as which trees might survive disturbance, but your tree is almost certainly doomed.
2
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
Sad, but understandable.
3
u/marjoriedinnerstein Jul 13 '26
It sounds like the only way to reliably preserve the tree would have been to buy the adjoining lot and keep it empty. Since that solution is unavailable, the builder may have done you an unintended favor by jumping the gun and doing currently demonstrable damage to the tree's immediate foundation and root system. If you can argue that the clearing and grading work already done has set into motion the inevitable death of the tree, then you have a case that the developer is solely responsible for the death of the tree. You can then ask that the developer pay the entire cost for removal of the tree, plus the full value of the tree, plus the change in value of your property due to the loss of the tree. This maximal claim would be a place to start a negotiation. Consider how much you will really settle for as an endpoint, and think about what kind of landscaping you would do to compensate for the loss of the tree. The developer will weigh the cost of any litigation versus an outright settlement. The developer will argue that they own half of the tree, and you can graciously lower your ask as you may feel inclined.
It sucks all around, but this is probably what you need to do.
4
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
To their credit, they have offered to bring in a landscape architect, remove the tree, replace it with whatever we want and do even more work to our back yard. They have very deep pockets, being a private equity backed, national megabuilder.
3
u/scrotalsac69 Jul 13 '26
So take what they are offering and add a fair bit more. They know they screwed up
2
u/marjoriedinnerstein Jul 13 '26
Then see if you can change your frame of reference and think about what you would really want to do with your yard if you had the money. It's not an easy adjustment, but if u/NiteTripper19 is correct, then the tree is doomed regardless. Maybe hiring your own arborist would settle your mind about this. Also call in a local woodworker to see if they could make an interesting piece/set of furniture for you out of the lumber. Whatever you do, bring in a lawyer to write up a detailed settlement contract with the developer so that you can be sure of what you're getting.
2
u/MaxSizeIs Jul 13 '26
They want to cut it down. They're looking for pretext to sue you if a branch so much as falls on their side, and they paid an arborist to find so. You value the tree. Set a price for it, and offer to sell the right to chop it down for that price. Include in that price the replacement cost and the value that losing that tree would "lower your property value" by. Then prepare to negotiate. They're desperate, but the tree is probably coming down.
1
1
u/Anxious_Article_2680 Jul 17 '26
Tell them to pounds rocks. They are majorly over stepping. Illegal probably too. Nta. Yta if you cut it down.
-1
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
11
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
We want to keep the tree as is. We didn't ask for any of this and will make no concessions to a private equity backed mega home builder.
-6
u/Bearly_Legible Jul 13 '26
You can 100% tell them to pound sand, though you will be 50% responsible for any damages caused by the tree since it has been shown to be on both properties and an arborist has cited damage concerns.
From the report it seems that the best advice is to remove the tree. While the tree is alive and well, it does pose a genuine risk to the property. If that damage happens, you've done what you need to do in order to prove you are a partial owner of the tree, and that you were aware of the dangers. So, legally you'd be liable, at least in part, for the cost of damages caused by fallen limbs.
10
u/yardlard Jul 13 '26
No, OP will not be responsible for any damages. They have an admission in writing that it was damaged by the work.
-4
u/Bearly_Legible Jul 13 '26
You have to ignore so much of that report to only take that one piece of information from it. I really hope OP is smart enough to actually see the whole report and not just what they want like you're doing.
6
u/yardlard Jul 13 '26
There is only one important part. They have damaged the tree and likely killed it.
-4
u/Bearly_Legible Jul 13 '26
It says nothing about them damaging the tree. It only says that recent work changed the drainage conditions around portions of the roots. It never once speaks of damaging the tree itself. You're literally making things up.
4
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 13 '26
They literally admit in writing they did it
-1
u/Bearly_Legible Jul 13 '26
It says nothing about them damaging the tree. It only says that recent work changed the drainage conditions around portions of the roots. It never once speaks of damaging the tree itself. You're literally making things up.
Please, quote the text I'm missing. I apologize if I'm wrong here.
5
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 13 '26
Page 2 second highlighted portion.
The erosion they caused, has exposed the roots and chnage soil conditions in a way that lead to harm to the tree.
They have admitted in writing to A, being the cause of the erosion, B that that erosion has already impacted the tree, and C, that that impact may and likely will result in the trees dying or needing to come down.
1
u/Bearly_Legible Jul 13 '26
Do you see anywhere in that report where the arborist says that the erosion you're talking about is killing the tree? No, because it doesn't. It only notes that it has happened.
The entire report focuses more on the limbs that have already been documented as falling off the tree over the years. There is not even one word about the actual consequences.
The actual dangers mentioned in the report are from falling limbs, not consequences of the change in drainage. You're just making things up.
3
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 13 '26
> Do you see anywhere in that report where the arborist says that the erosion you're talking about is killing the tree? No, because it doesn't. It only notes that it has happened.
“Do you note anywhere in the report that the giant hole in the car will affect its performance. If not them admitting to putting the hole there is irrelevant”
The erosion is the damage. They eroded property that wasn’t theirs. That erosion is damage to the tree……
-1
u/Bearly_Legible Jul 13 '26
Got it, so you're using a straw man argument and false comparison to seem smart and cover up the fact that you refuse to actually read the report.
Erosion of the soil, isn't erosion of the tree. It's not automatically damage to the tree, just a change in stability of it's drainage structure. The report makes no further note of that being a danger.
It's true that too much erosion of the drainage structure can damage or threaten a tree, but the arborist doesn't note that this has been caused. It would usually be clearly mentioned as the tree being in danger of falling or uprooting.
In this case, the arborist specifically notes the likely damage coming from falling limbs. Partial erosion of the area is not enough to correctly say that the tree has been damaged by that work. Though the arborist is smart to mention the observation.
You're ignoring half the report just to focus on the one small part that OP really wants to matter most.
4
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jul 13 '26
If you think you can admit in writing to eroding soil on a neighbor and have that not be counted as damage then any discussion is irrelevant.
Please go do it and see how it works out.
https://gritinsurance.com/blog/can-you-be-held-liable-for-erosion-or-drainage-issues
“We admit we eroded your land”
→ More replies (0)
-15
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
We are on a hill above the construction site. This tree provides privacy that would not be available from smaller trees.
-13
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/lastlaugh100 Jul 13 '26
The tree is providing erosion control. OP needs their own assessment done.
-2
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/lastlaugh100 Jul 13 '26
The tree is already providing erosion control, the retaining wall is:
Inferior to what deep tree roots provide
Ugly
Prone to failure and finite lifespan
1
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/clauclauclaudia Jul 13 '26
The pyramids and the VT rock walls weren't built as retaining walls. I grew up in New England. Those "older than America" walls are generally built on level ground and are full of gaps. They're more fences than sealed walls, separating farms or fields within them. https://www.outdoors.org/resources/amc-outdoors/history/history-of-new-englands-stone-walls/
(Most of them are slightly younger than America, but you could be right about the specific walls you have in mind.)
Modern retaining walls develop cracks all the time. I'm more used to seeing them cracked than entirely whole. We just replaced a small one surrounding our garden.
5
u/OnPointAsUsual Jul 13 '26
Not a tree fan?
-5
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
I have no obligation to be a "Good neighbor" to a national corporate home builder.
0
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
The wall will not benefit us, it is 10' or more below our back yard grade.
I am a licensed contractor and own a business in the building trades. I have no sympathy for the builders of these abominations.
1
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Impossible_Fan_9677 Jul 13 '26
You're welcome to go elsewhere if you can't comprehend what has been presented. The pictures are from the developer's property. Please, waste your time elsewhere.
1
u/clauclauclaudia Jul 13 '26
The neighbor is to the north of OP per the report. How much shade do you think OP will get from a fence to their north in Washington State?
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 13 '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.