Oak Tree on Boundary therefore 2 owners

[10 Bears]

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.

 

Im sorry to tell you rob - but the ownership is not decided as you state, so you are not correct.

 

Trees are 'land' property ie if you own the land - you own the tree and proportions thereof. If your boundary splits the tree, then you own split amounts. Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law.

[kev7937]

Im sorry to tell you rob - but the ownership is not decided as you state, so you are not correct.

 

 

 

Trees are 'land' property ie if you own the land - you own the tree and proportions thereof. If your boundary splits the tree, then you own split amounts. Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law.

 

 

I wonder how so many of us were under the impression owner ship could not be split.

 

I was definitely taught that at merrist wood in the mid90's.

[RobRainford]

Im sorry to tell you rob - but the ownership is not decided as you state, so you are not correct.

 

 

 

Trees are 'land' property ie if you own the land - you own the tree and proportions thereof. If your boundary splits the tree, then you own split amounts. Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law.

 

 

But the tree was originally on the majority owners land. Over time it has encroached on the neighbours property. Does that then allow them the right to cut back the 10%? What about the crown? Do they own what overhangs? It is technically over their property. I know they have the right to cut back but that doesn't mean they own what they are cutting.

 

What about the boundary line thickness on maps? This has been mentioned earlier.

 

Agreeing with Kev. I was told this on my BSc a couple of years ago. I suppose they are wrong too!

[treequip]

Im sorry to tell you rob - but the ownership is not decided as you state, so you are not correct.

 

Trees are 'land' property ie if you own the land - you own the tree and proportions thereof. If your boundary splits the tree, then you own split amounts. Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law.

 

Any citations for that?

[daltontrees]

Im sorry to tell you rob - but the ownership is not decided as you state, so you are not correct.

 

Trees are 'land' property ie if you own the land - you own the tree and proportions thereof. If your boundary splits the tree, then you own split amounts. Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law.

 

I too would be interested n the authorities on this. It seems to go against some pretty fundamental tenets of law.

[arb culture]

Any citations for that?

 

 

It's at section 3.2 of Charles Mynors' book The law of trees forests and hedges.

 

Among the cases he cites are Lemon v Webb 1894, Heatherington v Gault 1905, Richardson v Jay 1960, and Stanton v Jones (unreported) 1994.

 

It would seem that many of us tree people have been mis-educated regarding boundary tree ownership. I have trained at several colleges/universities, and, as far as I can remember, they have all taught me that boundary trees belong to one person or another but not both.

 

So I'm very grateful to Charles Mynors book for setting me straight.

[Jon Heuch]

You might want to dwell on the first two words of Mynors 3.2.3...."Perhaps paradoxically..." for it's just not that simple - one owner or two? There may be a difference between "ownership" and "rights". If the tree is owned by one neighbour with no dispute the roots of that tree can cause a nuisance to the next neighbour - the tree roots belong to the tree owner. If the tree is considered to be under joint ownership, possibly as a result of it growing across the boundary line the affected party might find it difficult to claim the tree was causing a nuisance if he also claimed part ownership or was told he was the part-owner. Who owns the tree roots growing under the ground of the affected party if the tree grows over the boundary? Surely ownership of the tree roots can't suddenly change as the tree stem grows over the magical boundary line?

[arb culture]

You might want to dwell on the first two words of Mynors 3.2.3...."Perhaps paradoxically..." for it's just not that simple - one owner or two? There may be a difference between "ownership" and "rights". If the tree is owned by one neighbour with no dispute the roots of that tree can cause a nuisance to the next neighbour - the tree roots belong to the tree owner. If the tree is considered to be under joint ownership, possibly as a result of it growing across the boundary line the affected party might find it difficult to claim the tree was causing a nuisance if he also claimed part ownership or was told he was the part-owner. Who owns the tree roots growing under the ground of the affected party if the tree grows over the boundary? Surely ownership of the tree roots can't suddenly change as the tree stem grows over the magical boundary line?

 

Hi Jon,

 

Nice to hear from you - your mortgage report course that I attended is still giving me food for thought (in a good way).

 

Mynors does say that the situation is more straightforward where a tree is close to a boundary but not on it. He does indeed seem to be saying that ownership magically changes when a tree base straddles a boundary.

 

BUT he also cautions that the position regarding the duties and rights of jointly owned boundary trees is not yet entirely clear, and that there might be room for further litigation to clarify the rights and duties of those concerned.

 

Have you had any experiences you are able to share which could throw some light on this?

[treequip]

It's at section 3.2 of Charles Mynors' book The law of trees forests and hedges.

 

Among the cases he cites are Lemon v Webb 1894, Heatherington v Gault 1905, Richardson v Jay 1960, and Stanton v Jones (unreported) 1994.

 

It would seem that many of us tree people have been mis-educated regarding boundary tree ownership. I have trained at several colleges/universities, and, as far as I can remember, they have all taught me that boundary trees belong to one person or another but not both.

 

So I'm very grateful to Charles Mynors book for setting me straight.

 

So when you said

Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law

 

What you meant was, in the opinion of the author of this book, which while acknowledging the mans depth of knowledge isn't quite the same thing.

 

Its not safe to call it law unless there is a direct case law to support

[arb culture]

So when you said

 

What you meant was, in the opinion of the author of this book, which while acknowledging the mans depth of knowledge isn't quite the same thing.

 

Its not safe to call it law unless there is a direct case law to support

 

Woah, hang on a minute - I didn't say,

 

"Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law".

 

Please don't misrepresent me