One tree, on two properties...

[Gary Prentice]

2 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I'd argue with that. It's an encroachment that the neighbour could self-abate, or if it was actionable could insist on it being removed.

I don't think you've followed what I'm saying Jules. 

 

If if it was simply growing (in the air) over the neighbours, it never belongs to the neighbour because it's in his airspace. 

 

Although he, the neighbour, has the relief of abatement (and other rights if actionable), he never gains the ability to demand that the owner doesn't remove it.

 

But if it layers, sets new roots and grows on supported and nourished by those roots, can it still be said that it is derived from the land that it originally grew from?

 

If it's severed at the boundary and lives, common sense says that it becomes the neighbours tree. After all, a self set sapling is owned by the owner of the land where the seed falls (unless its GM Monsanto seed) and the owner of the seed shedding tree has no claim)

 

If on the other hand, after severance, the layered roots don't support and nourish the remaining tree parts and it falls or dies, I think the neighbour could demand the original owner remove it.

 

The real problem is that these damn trees fail to recognise boundaries and grow where they please, keeping litigators (and arbs) in employment.

[daltontrees]

I misinterpreted 'no one would argue'. So I now don't disagree, it is an encroachment and the tree belongs where it came from.

 

If it roots, though, the new growth that derives sustenance from the neighbour's soil is his, after the point where he notices it or could reasonably expect to have noticed it. Then if he tolerates it, it's his. If severed from the original tree  it may carry on with his accceptance. If not, no harm done. And I don't think he can demand that the original tree owner does not sever it and cut off it's supply from original tree.

 

I don't really understand the physiology of layering roots, but it may be that the vascular flows to and from the new roots are plumbed primarily if not exclusively into the new growth. It would then be one of the 'branch attachment' enigma questions about what happens to the competition for cambial growth between new vascular growth and old vascular growth from the original tree.

[Daniël Bos]

I suppose I worry too much.

 

It's gonna get the chop, I'll make sure to take pictures aplenty.

It'll live for now though as I tore off a pipe of the digger, early weekend...

[Daniël Bos]

4 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

 

 

I don't really understand the physiology of layering roots, but it may be that the vascular flows to and from the new roots are plumbed primarily if not exclusively into the new growth. It would then be one of the 'branch attachment' enigma questions about what happens to the competition for cambial growth between new vascular growth and old vascular growth from the original tree.

the stem is a fair bit thicker after the second roots.

about 5" diameter at the original stem, after the second rooting it's about 8"

I reckon it'll live (at least for a few years, I'll be loooong gone!)

[Gary Prentice]

4 minutes ago, Daniël Bos said:

I suppose I worry too much.

 

I don’t. If nothing else when the neighbour complains you can say that you were reliably informed by some bloke on the Internet 

[Gary Prentice]

3 minutes ago, Daniël Bos said:

the stem is a fair bit thicker after the second roots.

about 5" diameter at the original stem, after the second rooting it's about 8"

I reckon it'll live (at least for a few years, I'll be loooong gone!)

Possibly because movement beyond the layered roots is causing strengthening growth, like a new tree above a tight tree tie. I don’t know if it necessarily because it’s deriving nourishment from the layered root more.

 

Jules layering comment is thought provoking.