Neighbourly dispute!

[Gary Prentice]

Nothings ever shared skyhuck, has to belong to someone

 

A tree growing on a boundary line, with the trunk partly in the land of each of the adjoining owners, is jointly owned. (Tenants in common) Holder v Coates

[openspaceman]

The owner will be the majority share, the other part is trespassing on the neighbouring property,

 

OK, if we assume the boundary is well defined as a line of no notional thickness and the piece grown over the line is in fact trespassing and nothing has been said for all those growing years what rights has the owner of the trespassing tree acquired?

[treequip]

OK, if we assume the boundary is well defined as a line of no notional thickness and the piece grown over the line is in fact trespassing and nothing has been said for all those growing years what rights has the owner of the trespassing tree acquired?

 

None....

[eggsarascal]

i would be tempted to half the height of the main trunk........? she'd be in for a shock then.

 

There is no dispute over the tree! But I guess there could be if we got new neighbours.

[openspaceman]

None....

 

This would be contrary to the normal laws of acquiring rights by prescriptive use

[treequip]

The owner of the land suffering the trespass has the right to self abate the nuisance which pretty much ends the issue.

[treeseer]

OK, if we assume the boundary is well defined as a line of no notional thickness and the piece grown over the line is in fact trespassing and nothing has been said for all those growing years what rights has the owner of the trespassing tree acquired?

 

1. Shade

 

2. Beauty

 

3. Air purification

 

4. Water uptake

 

5. Wildlife value

 

6. Etc...

 

O and the right to trim it to the extent it will not damage the rights of the neighbor to their enjoyment of the asset in common.

[likeitorlumpit]

What would you make of the one below ?

 

The trunk of the tree is on my land although most of the tree is in my neighbours garden. Surely it is my tree/responsibility.

 

[ATTACH]124259[/ATTACH]

 

Is this a photo of the tree or the neighbours washing:001_smile:

[sloth]

1. Shade

 

2. Beauty

 

3. Air purification

 

4. Water uptake

 

5. Wildlife value

 

6. Etc...

 

O and the right to trim it to the extent it will not damage the rights of the neighbor to their enjoyment of the asset in common.

 

1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 are more benefits enjoyed while the tree is there. 4 could be nuisance, or not.

I don't believe it is an asset in common, ones asset may be another's nuisance! If the tree is not subject to any statutory protection, the neighbour has the right to cut (roots included) to the boundary; and to hell with the health, stability or tree owners enjoyment of their own tree. Bizarre perhaps What would the law be in such a situation your side of the big pond?