Oak Tree on Boundary therefore 2 owners

[Acg128]

If the neighbour I'd happy for it to go fell it and get you application for the bungalow in!

[arb culture]

Oooh fancypants

 

Francis Taylor Building | Dr Charles Mynors

 

[10 Bears]

Hi 10 Bears,

 

If the tree 90/10% then does Mr 90% have the right to fell the tree, similarly (and I am exagerating to proof a point) it the tree is 51/49% with no queries as to the correct boundary position status then does Mr 51% have the right to fell the tree.

 

No, there is no majority rule. If 90% wants it felled, and 10% doesn't - there is an impasse that in truth only arbitration would resolve.

[10 Bears]

Well if he's not on here he don't count.

 

 

Who is he and whats he say?

 

This was probably the funniest comment I have ever read on here!

[10 Bears]

Im probably talking to myself about this now -- which wouldnt be the first time, but Ive referred to the aforementioned sage (Mr Mynors) and here are his comments:

 

"Land is of course, divided into neighbouring parcels in separate ownership. This will normally be by vertical division; and since land extends to include the air above the surface and the ground below it, as well as the surface of the land itself, this means that the soil containing the roots of the tree, or the above ground portion of the tree may be in two or more completely separate ownerships".

 

(Mynors, 2.1.4 Trees on or Near Boundaries, P.27).

 

Earlier comments about trespass and nuisance are correct to some degree - but not relevant in deciding ownership and subsequent liabilities, and I suggest would not apply to this question.

[Tim Stobart Tree Surgery]

I vote for a dismantle involving setting up an Alaskan mill vertically to run down the boundary line leaving the 10% standing. If it survives (there would be a decent cambium) then it would be an amazing tree!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Im probably talking to myself about this now -- which wouldnt be the first time, but Ive referred to the aforementioned sage (Mr Mynors) and here are his comments:

 

"Land is of course, divided into neighbouring parcels in separate ownership. This will normally be by vertical division; and since land extends to include the air above the surface and the ground below it, as well as the surface of the land itself, this means that the soil containing the roots of the tree, or the above ground portion of the tree may be in two or more completely separate ownerships".

 

(Mynors, 2.1.4 Trees on or Near Boundaries, P.27).

 

Earlier comments about trespass and nuisance are correct to some degree - but not relevant in deciding ownership and subsequent liabilities, and I suggest would not apply to this question.

 

 

But he's not on Arbtalk Bear (unless he's secretly masquerading as craigo93???)

[Stubby]

But he's not on Arbtalk Bear (unless he's secretly masquerading as craigo93???)

 

. He is bonkers !

[RobRainford]

Going from what knowledge I do have, the tree belongs to whoevers land it was originally planted or begun to grow on, if it encroached into another boundary, it's still the original owners. Go back 30 years of whatever, there will be no 90/10%. It'll be 100% on one side, ownership is then not disputed.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[peatff]

I was taught that too, but Charles Mynors seems to have other ideas, and I don't think many of us are qualified to contradict him

 

On Charles Mynors:-

"He was called to the Bar in 1988 by the Middle Temple; and has been on its Estates Committee since 1998. In 2002 he was called to the Bar in Northern Ireland. "

 

Sounds like he wants to lay off the drink and get some work done