Oak Tree on Boundary therefore 2 owners

[treequip]

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

 

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

 

Please don't misrepresent me

 

My bad, you didn't say that but that is the quote you were defending.

 

The point stands that there isn't a precedent that says that but there is loads of precedent for the trespass option

[Joe Newton]

Its pretty straight forward and is backed up in law.

 

 

Think you quoted the wrong bloke, Treequip

 

Edit: too slow!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[arb culture]

My bad, you didn't say that but that is the quote you were defending.

 

The point stands that there isn't a precedent that says that but there is loads of precedent for the trespass option

 

Ah sorry - I didn't mean to defend that quote, I was just trying to be helpful in providing some case law citations for you. With these citations it's possible for a person to check the matter out for themselves.

 

After reading Mynors' book and checking out the case law myself, I do now believe that what I was taught about there only ever being one owner of a boundary tree is wrong. But I am not a lawyer.

 

Do you know any case law showing that there can only ever be one owner of a boundary tree?

 

[treequip]

Ah sorry - I didn't mean to defend that quote, I was just trying to be helpful in providing some case law citations for you. With these citations it's possible for a person to check the matter out for themselves.

 

After reading Mynors' book and checking out the case law myself, I do now believe that what I was taught about there only ever being one owner of a boundary tree is wrong. But I am not a lawyer.

 

Do you know any case law showing that there can only ever be one owner of a boundary tree?

 

 

No but I don't think its needed

 

There is plenty on trespass and encroachment is usually handled that way.

[Gary Prentice]

No but I don't think its needed

 

There is plenty on trespass and encroachment is usually handled that way.

 

Your own tree can't trespass on your own land, or be a nuisance.

 

Personally I can't see an issue with joint ownership. It's not unheard of for a boundary wall to be in joint ownership and upkeep.

[arb culture]

No but I don't think its needed

 

There is plenty on trespass and encroachment is usually handled that way.

 

But if the tree is jointly owned then it might be that there cannot be any trespass or encroachment.

 

Which is why I responded to the original query that they should sort out who owns the tree before they go any further.

[treequip]

Your own tree can't trespass on your own land, or be a nuisance.

 

No but a tree can have a single owner and a neighbour suffering trespass

 

 

Personally I can't see an issue with joint ownership. It's not unheard of for a boundary wall to be in joint ownership and upkeep.

 

Not a very good comparison. That wold be a built structure with ownership and duties (usually enshrined in the deeds), how about if a wall falls onto the neighbours garden, do they become joint custodians?

[daltontrees]

Maybe I can help? The folly as ever is in assuming that there is one rght answer. Answers only ever come from questions, the clearer the question, the clearer the answer.

 

Someone poses a question on Arbtalk. Someone else jumps to a few innocent conclusions, makes some assumptions, uses fragmented experience, relies on imperfect authorities and dives in with an answer with the best of intentions.

 

What was the original question? Oh yeah, a tree none of us has seen may or may not be close to the centre of a boundary line that may or may not be defined or provable. Here's the answer. None of us know enough to to say what the answer is. Sure, we can say if A is the case and B is the Case and C is not the case then the answer is in the absence of improbable and undisclosed circumstances the answer is D.

 

Whe workign as a trainee surveyor I came acrosos a fairly frequent stipulation in title deeds. When someone split the ownership of a bit of land, they stated in the deeds that the new owner must plant a line of boundary trees or ahedge and that thereafter it woud be maintained as a boundary at mutual expense.

 

Compare that with the situation that nature creates. The acorn falls and flourishes and no-one stops it.

 

On the one hand, despite the fundamental that a tree must start on one side or the other and therefore be one person's or another with all other growth being an encroachment, if two people agree that a tree or line of trees be planted to be the boundary and to be mutually maintained, a different sort of law supplants the law that governs natural generation.

 

On the other hand, the natural tree on one man's land encroaches with hair-thin roots which unabated thicken till their encroachment becomes nuisance. The law on this is clear, it doesn't start to be jointly owned when it grows up, it always has been one man's or the other's.

 

 

And in the middle, if ownership is unknown or can't be proven, the law has evolved another set of remedies to deal with ambiguities.

 

The only difficulty is lack of facts about the case and getting uppity in the defence of unstated jumped conclusions and assumptions.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Maybe I can help? The folly as ever is in assuming that there is one rght answer. Answers only ever come from questions, the clearer the question, the clearer the answer.

 

 

 

Someone poses a question on Arbtalk. Someone else jumps to a few innocent conclusions, makes some assumptions, uses fragmented experience, relies on imperfect authorities and dives in with an answer with the best of intentions.

 

 

 

What was the original question? Oh yeah, a tree none of us has seen may or may not be close to the centre of a boundary line that may or may not be defined or provable. Here's the answer. None of us know enough to to say what the answer is. Sure, we can say if A is the case and B is the Case and C is not the case then the answer is in the absence of improbable and undisclosed circumstances the answer is D.

 

 

 

Whe workign as a trainee surveyor I came acrosos a fairly frequent stipulation in title deeds. When someone split the ownership of a bit of land, they stated in the deeds that the new owner must plant a line of boundary trees or ahedge and that thereafter it woud be maintained as a boundary at mutual expense.

 

 

 

Compare that with the situation that nature creates. The acorn falls and flourishes and no-one stops it.

 

 

 

On the one hand, despite the fundamental that a tree must start on one side or the other and therefore be one person's or another with all other growth being an encroachment, if two people agree that a tree or line of trees be planted to be the boundary and to be mutually maintained, a different sort of law supplants the law that governs natural generation.

 

 

 

On the other hand, the natural tree on one man's land encroaches with hair-thin roots which unabated thicken till their encroachment becomes nuisance. The law on this is clear, it doesn't start to be jointly owned when it grows up, it always has been one man's or the other's.

 

 

 

 

 

And in the middle, if ownership is unknown or can't be proven, the law has evolved another set of remedies to deal with ambiguities.

 

 

 

The only difficulty is lack of facts about the case and getting uppity in the defence of unstated jumped conclusions and assumptions.

 

 

Brilliant summary, I wouldn't be surprised if you sagely and purposely avoided the thorny issue of ego and pride as further complicating factors!

[FatherJack]

It would be great if the original poster came back with some more facts, so that we could have another round of speculation, assumptions, and side-tracks!