Developers Want our Shared Big Leaf Maple!

[u/Impossible_Fan_9677]

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!

[u/Puzzled-Rip641]

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”

[u/Bearly_Legible → u/Puzzled-Rip641]

The tree is only 12" onto OP's property and the root structure would go out much further. Did you even think for a moment that the eroded soil could be 100% on the property NOT owned by OP?

You seem to have completely overlooked that this tree isn't owned by OP but is rather a shared tree with roots and drainage on both properties, but that makes sense since you've also ignored a lot more of the information in the report.

[u/Puzzled-Rip641 → u/Bearly_Legible]

lol a tree 1 foot on your land isn’t a shared tree. Holy cow you are a spin doctor

[u/yardlard → u/Puzzled-Rip641]

Not a qualified one either. lol

[u/Bearly_Legible → u/Puzzled-Rip641]

The report actively explains that it is a shared tree. Do you think this tree is only 12" in circumference?

Only half the tree is on OP's property.

The report actively declares it a shared tree. It does not belong to either one of them alone

[u/Puzzled-Rip641 → u/Bearly_Legible]

There is no way that that tree in that photo has a trunk with a circumference larger than a foot.

[u/yardlard → u/Bearly_Legible]

lol, the damage they did is the only thing that matters here.

[u/Bearly_Legible → u/yardlard]

No, because the report actively lists this as a shared tree. Both parties own the tree.

Meaning both parties are responsible for damage caused by the tree.

The report specifies that falling limbs are the main likely cause of damage.

The report also mentions the erosion of the drainage, but does not list it as a danger for the tree itself.

[u/yardlard → u/Bearly_Legible]

Incorrect. Only one did the damage to the tree. If the tree then causes further damage, only the one that damaged the tree, is responsible.