MICHAEL RICHMOND, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A landowner is not liable for damages caused by encroaching tree branches from their property onto a neighbor's property.
Plaintiff sued for damages allegedly caused by defendant's ficus tree branches extending over the property line and onto plaintiff's home. The trial c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Richmond sued for money damages based on the alleged “negligence” of the defendant-appellee in permitting branches of a ficus tree growing on its property to extend over and onto the next lot where the plaintiffs home was located. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.
While there is substantial authority to the contrary, which may indeed represent the majority rule, cases collected, 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners § 53, n. 37 (1972), we agree with those decisions which hold that in view of the undoubted right of the landowner himself to cut off intruding roots or branches at the property line, 2 C.J.S. Adjoining Landowners § 52 (1972),1 no such action may be maintained. Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A. 2d 144 (D.C.1950); Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 232, 175 N.E. 490 (1931); Norwood v. City of New York, 95 Misc.2d 55, 406 N.Y.S.2d 256, 258 (Civ.Ct.1978); Mead v. Vincent, 199 Okl. 508, 187 P. 2d 994 (1947); Granberry v. Jones, 188 Tenn. 51, 216 S.W. 2d 721 (1949); see Knepper v. Slovak, 31 Fla.Supp. 131 (15th Cir.Ct.1968). It seems to us that the recognition of an action of this type to redress a claimed wrong which might otherwise be obviated by the time-honored remedy of self-help would represent a wasteful and needless use of the judicial system. See Kirou v. Oceanside Plaza Condominium Association, Inc., 425 So. 2d 650 (Fla.3d DCA 1983).
Affirmed.
. We do not consider whether the reasonable expenses so incurred are recoverable. See Olson v. Westerberg, 2 Ill.App.2d 285, 119 N.E. 2d 413 (1954).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MAY v. Crounse, 598 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…Inc., 460 N.W. 2d 106 (Minn.App.1990); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 349 (1965); see Sullivan v. Silver Palm Properties, Inc., 558 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1990); Gallo v. Heller, 512 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Richmond v. General Engineering Enters., 454 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Ponte v. DaSilva, 388 Mass. 1008, 446 N.E. 2d 77 (1983).…
-
Vaughn v. Segal, 707 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…laintiff-appellant’s property. This court has previously held that there is no cause of action in such circumstances for nuisance, see Gallo v. Heller, 512 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), or negligence. See Richmond v. General Eng’g Enters. Co., 454 So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Plaintiff contends, however, that there is a private right of action under chapter 19 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade [*952] County, entitled “Lot Junk, Garbage and Trash Clearing.” Plaintiff argues that a violation of thi…
-
Gallo v. Heller, 512 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ining property owner to such a nuisance, however, is privileged to trim back, at the adjoining owner’s own expense, any encroaching tree roots or branches and other vegetation which has grown onto his property. Richmond v. General Eng’g Enters. Co., 454 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Knepper v. Slovak, 31 Fla.Supp. 131 (Fla. 15th Cir.Ct.1968); see Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A. 2d 144 (D.C. 1950); Schwalbach v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 687 S.W. 2d 551 (Ky.Ct.App. 1985); Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp., 68 Md. App. 10…
Authorities Cited
- Kirou v. Oceanside Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 425 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Knepper v. Slovak, 31 Fla. Supp. 131 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1968)