[WSBARP] WSBARP Digest, Vol 96, Issue 24

Sat Sep 24 14:32:50 PDT 2022

Sam,
      You should tender the matter to your client’s homeowners insurance company. There is almost always coverage although some companies will take the position there is no claim until a law suit is filed.

Steve Whitehouse

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 24, 2022, at 1:00 PM, wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com wrote:
> 
> Send WSBARP mailing list submissions to
>    wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    wsbarp-request at lists.wsbarppt.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    wsbarp-owner at lists.wsbarppt.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WSBARP digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Boundary Line/Timber Trespass Issues (samuel at meylerlegal.com)
>   2. Re: Claim against tribe employee (Jayne Marsh Gilbert)
>   3. Re: Boundary Line/Timber Trespass Issues (Douglas Scott)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 13:09:43 -0700
> From: <samuel at meylerlegal.com>
> To: "'WSBA Real Property Listserv'" <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Boundary Line/Timber Trespass Issues
> Message-ID:
>    <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAHIWqpzKTzVHtvmFzXy1wbgBAMO2jhD3dRHOtM0AqgC7tuYAAAAAAA4AABAAAAD8XsWD+aQfSbrjwqCyV0riAQAAAAA=@meylerlegal.com>
>    
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Listmates:
> 
> 
> 
> PC has a boundary line/timber trespass dispute with the neighbor.  Neighbor
> purchased their property in 2012, which was a vacant lot at the time.  Two
> large (think 60-75 feet) trees straddled the boundary line.  Property owners
> have an interest in trees on a common boundary that is "proportionate to the
> percentage of [the trees'] trunks growing on [the owner's] property." Happy
> Bunch, LLC v. Grandview N., LLC, 142 Wn. App. 81, 93, 173 P.3d 959 (2007).
> "[T]he correct measure of damages is calculated by multiplying the trees'
> value by the percentage of the trees' trunks that had been growing on the
> plaintiff's property."  Id. at 94.
> 
> 
> 
> Neighbor built a residence on the property in 2017.  During their
> construction of the residence in 2017, they completely removed one of the
> trees without consent and removed roots from the second tree that were on
> the neighbor's side of the boundary in order to be able to excavate, pour
> their foundation, run utilities, etc.  We know all of this from the personal
> representative of the estate that PC purchased the property from.  PC's
> predecessor (deceased) did nothing about the timber trespass at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> PC purchased their property from the estate in 2018.  The one tree that was
> left standing by the other neighbor was dying.  Arborist says that the
> damage/cutting of the roots that the neighbor had done caused significant
> damage and the tree was dying (not dead, but dying).  The tree was extremely
> close the PC's residence and PC was concerned about damage to their
> residence, so they wrote to neighbor at their permanent residence (neighbor
> developed the next-door property as a second home) and said that they want
> to remove the tree.  Neighbor never responded so PC went out and took the
> tree down.  You know where this is going.  Neighbor came to their vacation
> home, found that PC took the tree down and is asserting claims.    
> 
> 
> 
> RCW 64.12.040 provides mitigating circumstances, but legitimate and imminent
> harm to one's own property does not appear to be a defense or a mitigating
> factor when someone takes down a tree that they "jointly own" because it is
> straddling the boundary.  Neighbor's complete removal of one tree and damage
> to the roots of the tree that PC ultimately removed took place when PC's
> predecessor owned the property/trees and it was several years ago so I don't
> think that PC has any sort of viable counterclaim.  
> 
> 
> 
> It seems wrong that the neighbor took down a co-owned tree without
> liability, caused the other tree to start dying, but PC is liable to the
> neighbor for protecting their home from the tree falling on it.  Anyone have
> any thoughts as to potential claims, counterclaims or defenses?
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Friday!
> 
> 
> 
> Sam  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel M. Meyler
> 
> Meyler Legal, PLLC 
> 
> 1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200
> 
> Seattle, Washington 98109
> 
> Tel:  206.876.7770
> 
> Fax:  206.876.7771
> 
> Email:   <mailto:samuel at meylerlegal.com> samuel at meylerlegal.com
> 
> 
> 
> NOTICE:
> 
> 
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or
> Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of
> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information is
> intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you
> are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
> prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
> sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments.
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220923/ec73902a/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 23:19:37 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Jayne Marsh Gilbert <jgilbertatty at yahoo.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Claim against tribe employee
> Message-ID: <1178168542.4607.1663975177969 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Which Tribe?
>    On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 08:22:50 AM PDT, Roger Hawkes <roger at skyvalleylawyers.com> wrote:  
> 
> <!--#yiv2832754727 _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv2832754727 #yiv2832754727 p.yiv2832754727MsoNormal, #yiv2832754727 li.yiv2832754727MsoNormal, #yiv2832754727 div.yiv2832754727MsoNormal {margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv2832754727 span.yiv2832754727EmailStyle20 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2832754727 .yiv2832754727MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv2832754727 div.yiv2832754727WordSection1 {}-->
> Craig: please tell us the answer when you get it.
> 
> ?
> 
> From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>On Behalf Of Craig Gourley
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 7:26 PM
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: [WSBARP] Claim against tribe employee
> 
> ?
> 
> Listmates,? This one is outside my wheelhouse.? Short story is Tribal employee gave unsolicited and clearly erroneous information to a prospective property buyer. ?Buyer cancelled the deal. Supervisors admit in writing that information was flat wrong.? PC is damaged in the amount of $80k.? Threshold issue is if they bring an action would it be in Tribal, Federal or State court.? Inquiring minds want to know. ?
> 
> ?
> 
> GOURLEY LAW GROUP
> 
> THE EXCHANGE CONNECTION
> 
> SNOHOMISH ESCROW 
> 
> P.O. Box 1091
> 
> Snohomish, WA 98291
> 
> PH:? (360) 568-5065 (800) 291-8401
> 
> Fax: (360) 568-8092 
> 
> ?
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.
> 
> ?
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp  
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220923/d39069d0/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 18:32:07 -0700
> From: Douglas Scott <doug at rainieradvocates.com>
> To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
> Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Boundary Line/Timber Trespass Issues
> Message-ID:
>    <5C7E3558-6987-48F9-BF98-2D40FE4D83C6 at rainieradvocates.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Sounds like you have SOL equitable arguments but not legal. This is a job for mediation between neighbors 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2022, at 1:12 PM, samuel at meylerlegal.com wrote:
>> 
>> ?
>> Listmates:
>> 
>> PC has a boundary line/timber trespass dispute with the neighbor.  Neighbor purchased their property in 2012, which was a vacant lot at the time.  Two large (think 60-75 feet) trees straddled the boundary line.  Property owners have an interest in trees on a common boundary that is ?proportionate to the percentage of [the trees'] trunks growing on [the owner's] property.? Happy Bunch, LLC v. Grandview N., LLC, 142 Wn. App. 81, 93, 173 P.3d 959 (2007).  ?[T]he correct measure of damages is calculated by multiplying the trees' value by the percentage of the trees' trunks that had been growing on the plaintiff's property.?  Id. at 94.
>> 
>> Neighbor built a residence on the property in 2017.  During their construction of the residence in 2017, they completely removed one of the trees without consent and removed roots from the second tree that were on the neighbor?s side of the boundary in order to be able to excavate, pour their foundation, run utilities, etc?  We know all of this from the personal representative of the estate that PC purchased the property from.  PC?s predecessor (deceased) did nothing about the timber trespass at that time.
>> 
>> PC purchased their property from the estate in 2018.  The one tree that was left standing by the other neighbor was dying.  Arborist says that the damage/cutting of the roots that the neighbor had done caused significant damage and the tree was dying (not dead, but dying).  The tree was extremely close the PC?s residence and PC was concerned about damage to their residence, so they wrote to neighbor at their permanent residence (neighbor developed the next-door property as a second home) and said that they want to remove the tree.  Neighbor never responded so PC went out and took the tree down.  You know where this is going?  Neighbor came to their vacation home, found that PC took the tree down and is asserting claims.    
>> 
>> RCW 64.12.040 provides mitigating circumstances, but legitimate and imminent harm to one?s own property does not appear to be a defense or a mitigating factor when someone takes down a tree that they ?jointly own? because it is straddling the boundary.  Neighbor?s complete removal of one tree and damage to the roots of the tree that PC ultimately removed took place when PC?s predecessor owned the property/trees and it was several years ago so I don?t think that PC has any sort of viable counterclaim. 
>> 
>> It seems wrong that the neighbor took down a co-owned tree without liability, caused the other tree to start dying, but PC is liable to the neighbor for protecting their home from the tree falling on it.  Anyone have any thoughts as to potential claims, counterclaims or defenses?
>> 
>> Happy Friday!
>> 
>> Sam 
>> 
>> 
>> Samuel M. Meyler
>> Meyler Legal, PLLC 
>> 1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200
>> Seattle, Washington 98109
>> Tel:  206.876.7770
>> Fax:  206.876.7771
>> Email:  samuel at meylerlegal.com
>> 
>> NOTICE:
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments.  Thank you.
>> 
>> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WSBARP mailing list
>> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220923/2babc463/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
> 
> End of WSBARP Digest, Vol 96, Issue 24
> **************************************