@@johnkorth8599 Its still legal malpractice because you're going to lose any case where you sue the wrong party and have to pay all the legal fees. That's why the courts said the legal process failed this couple.
Yep, but at least his lawyer was good enough to convince that chief judge that an arrogant rich guy who frivolously sues innocent parties was actually somehow a victim because he had a wife with cancer.
@@Grrrnthumb Rich guy? Dude sold $6500 worth of trees and will probably lose his house to pay all the legal fees. You must have a very strange idea of what rich is.
I'm a professional forester. Every time you tell stories like these, I have many questions about the case. I get hired by landowners to mark, measure, and then sell timber from their property. It sounds like I would have been the guy that was hired to mark this sale. That could have been either marking and measuring the trees that are to be taken, or locating and marking the property line. In either case the responsibility would be mine to get it exactly right. I know how much trouble I would be in were I to botch the assignment. And I couldn't blame anybody else. I have had landowners tell me they owned land that they didn't. I have had survey stakes be located in a different place than the tax map has said. That's what you are paying me to do, get all my ducks in a row before the transaction is made. Loggers pay beaucoup insurance against this type of catastrophe, and are protected should a claim be made. So why weren't they sued? Unless the loggers were penniless, weekend warrior types who had no money to litigate for. Lastly, Steve, you say you have a hard time believing that the trees were worth $1,600 (or $84 apiece, on average). Everybody thinks trees are worth a mint, individually. I can't say what they were worth sitting here in my office, a continent away, but I can tell you this. Idaho is mostly softwood sawtimber, good for building material. Here in the northeast, White pine is the species most prized for two-by material and beams. That goes for about $100 per thousand board foot, standing. More if you cut, skid, and deliver yourself. For a white pine to be worth $84 it would have to be 800 board feet, which is a very big, conspicuously big tree. Just want to dispel the thought that every standing tree is hugely valuable. A black walnut 3 foot through and 40 feet to the first limb, yes, but a white pine 18 inches at chest high, no.
Trees have more than one value though, do they not? Sure there’s the value you’re talking about which is the value of the wood, but there’s also the replacement value. Trees provide shade(reducing AC bills) privacy(do they need to build a fence now?) they add property value(what if the new buyer no longer wants the house without the trees?) Selling a house nestled in tree covered lot vs a bare lot, the tree covered lot is worth more. If they sued for replacement value I would think each tree is worth 25k minimum. You might know; what would it cost to buy, haul and transplant a mature tree? (And enough roots to keep it alive)
You are the first person on here that seems to understand what the system is for that should work for everybody. Steve said at 07:20 that the lumber company sent a forester to establish the west property boundary (of the sale). Then nothing else is mentioned about said forester, who he worked for or who paid him. It is like he is of no consequence. Something is being left out of this story.
I've got a black walnut about 18 inches diameter and 10 feet to the first limb. That's likely the most valuable tree on my 2.5 acres, and I imagine that's not worth a whole lot.
@@narrowgroundentertainmentindividually, its worthless. If you owned 30 acres so a logger could ship a truckload of them (as well as other truckloads of timber) it would be worth a lot.
we had a similar situation with a single tree at the corner of our property being cut by a new neighbor who had purchased a lot and was about to build a house. But in this case it was not a mistake, it was deliberate. When they started clearing the lot we had a surveyor very precisely mark that corner and line, and we discussed the clearing with the neighbor. We have 60 acres, and cannot see this spot from our home. He asked to cut the 100 year old, over three foot trunk diameter, 100' tall maple that sat about five feet INSIDE the corner of our property. We refused. Based on how he reacted, we sent him a certified letter stating clearly that the tree was not to be touched. He then moved the property markers and had a tree company cut the tree while we were away. When confronted, he laughed and said "The most it will cost me is three times the value, maybe a thousand bucks". This was said in front of a police officer. well...the local court did not take that at all well, and we won three times the REPLACEMENT cost. Not that we DID replace it (I mean...how exactly do you move and plant a 60 ton tree?), but we got paid the estimated cost to do so times three. The neighbor had to sell his lot to cover the judgement.
That would be your neighbor's problem of how to move and replant that tree!! I would insist that he replant it. Because he STOLE it!! Plus I would use the "K" word too.. You know like "kuller" but with an "i" and not a "u". Because in my opinion that is what he is!
Happens all the time in FL where I used to live. The city and county had laws against removing large oaks, mostly, just because they are in the way of some developer's cash flow. Most developers cut them down, said, "Whoops," and included the fine in the cost of the $2 million dollar home.
Thank you for sharing this! Awful that the tree was cut, but what a great conclusion! IMO triple cost of replacement needs to be the standard sentence for illegal tree cutting.
This would be a great way to do it. A lot of people are way to trusting in other people. However, the guy's wife was dieing, so probably not in the best state of mind to come up with a plan to deal with a screw up like this.
Doesn’t always work, sometimes the neighbors will tell you to pound sand, and try to fight the construction crew. I know that was one of our experiences. Consulted the parcel map, a surveyor who marked out the lines, talked with the rear neighbor over the fact that a fence was going up. Engaged in a bit of verbal discourse over the property line not being where the neighbor thought it was even though their pets seemed to act like it was their yard. Then on construction day consulted with a sheriff to preempt a more pointed discussion over the fence. He informed them that a civil court was the way to handle their disagreement, and if they didn’t back off he’d give them a trespassing charge. Sometimes neighbors can eat an entire bag of bullocks.
@wyominghome4857 If any neighbor of mine is having trees felled, I'm taking the day off work to protect _my_ trees on _my_ property! That said, if I contracted a felling company to harvest trees on _my_ property, I would take the day off work to ensure that the tree feller didn't remove any of my neighbor's trees.
And the neighbors who sued their elderly neighbors with cancer over $1600 in trees but took them for $50k... There's a special place in the afterlife for them
@@mattgayda2840 The guy STOLE trees. Depending on the trees $50k may be proper. Walnut for example. THEN they sued the lumber mill because . . . why? It was the property OWNER'S responsibility to know their property. They went after them just to get a payday AND LOST.
@@mattgayda2840 Why does being old or being sick make you the victim for destruction of someone else's property? You're absurd, do you think the people who murdered someone in an armed robbery are the victims because "they had no viable alternative", like getting a job?
@@brentfarvors192can sue anyone but would a lawyer take the case if there no insurance. which is the biggest failure of the court system. Lawyer are only there for money not justice
Apart from HOA issues, tree disputes are probably the biggest source of property disputes. I’m actually surprised, as the law on this topic has been settled for centuries. One of the first lessons is: be REALLY sure of where the property lines are. The second element is: TALK to your neighbor, before you do anything. Get on the same page. Can’t agree? Get professional advice. Talk to the city. Make sure you’re dealing with a real, licensed and bonded, contractor. Preventing disputes is the first step. Otherwise . . . LEARN before arguing. There’s not anything you can add to the centuries of law on this topic. How to value trees, etc., is part of that record. Don’t act like a ‘sovereign citizen’ and try to re-invent the rules in your favor.
Real, licensed and bonded, contractor in Idaho Ha, ha ha ha, ha. People who know better here in North Idaho get contractors from Washington that require bonding and insurance.
Maybe they really weren't neighbors. Maybe this "Elderly Couple" just owned some land somewhere. Theres something going on and the truth isn't in the story Steve told.
@tj92834 this incident happened before 2012 and the homeowner was about 80 years old. The forrester misread a map and the neighbor over-reacted with a miney grab.
I'm in northern Michigan. This fall my new neighbor clear cut a number of our trees. He told us not to worry he used an APP on his phone so he did not cut our trees. We had a survey done they were all on our property. We had an arborist come in and estimate the value. We heard chainsaws again on our property. We went to the area and listened to the neighbor's son and his friend talking before we approached them. The friend was telling the son his dad was nuts if he thought they would cut up all the trees and drag them onto the neighbors property for four hundred and fifty dollars. Some of theses trees were over six feet in circumference. The arborist had estimated over ten thousand for clean up. We had our lawyer on the phone and he told us to tell them to leave. We had called him to let him hear the chainsaws running. Our lawyer sent them a bill and the neighbor filed a claim with his homeowners insurance saying he accidently cut our trees down. Waiting to hear from his insurance.
Going to be bad for the new neighbour. The dragging to property line says the action was taken knowing that they were taking trees off property they did not own, so criminal trespass at a minimum, and the value of the stolen lumber makes it a felony.
Steve, I can tell you from experience that anytime you deal with loggers, you will get screwed. I just went through this last year, and the claim that the logs were only worth $1600 is what the TIMBER COMPANY claims. Same thing happened in my case, where the company told me the logs were only "tie logs" which means they are used for railroad ties. These are a lower graded timber than "veneer logs", which are typically used for furniture or even dimensional lumber. When I checked with the log yard that bought the logs, over half were indeed "veneer logs" but the timber contractor only paid me for low quality "tie logs'. The lumber business in notoriously corrupt.
My cousin had someone come to his door and offer $12,000 for the trees on his property. He took their card, saying he had to think about it. He called a different log buyer and got an offer for $21,000.
@@tj92834 Don't know where you get your information, but here in my area, loggers buy small timber stands. In my case, a tornado had created what is known as a "blowdown" where I had 43 trees that were toppled, pulling the root balls out of the ground. Cutting and removing these is NOT "tree care", it is "log harvesting" and is even covered under our state's Department of Agriculture rules.
It's corrupt all over. We sold an inherited place in Florida in a place where there's rapid development occurring a while back and one of the developers wanted to buy it told us the septic tank lines went over the property line and would cost a bunch of money to sort out (they weren't) and another told us they'd have to pay to tear everything down and off the lot (it's still there 5 years later). One of them appeared to be in league with the realtor we were using so she got the boot. We got the price we wanted so I'm fairly happy but it definitely left a bad taste.
It wasn't clear who hired the tree cutter, but if they were sub-contracted by the lumber company, wouldn't the lumber company be responsible? Based on the fact that the lumer company had to survey the property leads me to believe that they were handling all the logistics of the project.
From what I read, Eyer (the elderly man in this case) hired the Idaho Forest Group logging company. This company sent out a Forrester to help Eyer’s son-in-law identify the trees and flag the boundary. This Forrester then recommended a logger to cut down the trees. The logger cut down the trees that were identified and inside the boundary that was marked by the Forrester and Eyer’s son-in-law. Eyer sued the Idaho Forest Group because he claimed they did not mark the boundaries correctly. The court ruled the Idaho Forest Group had no legal duty to mark the boundaries. In other words it was Eyer’s fault. Eyer didn’t like the ruling so he filed an appeal that eventually ended up at the State Supreme Court, but he still lost. All those court battles cost him $37k for his own attorney, $95k for the Idaho Forest Group attorney’s and $50k to settle with his neighbor. He mortgaged his home for $200k to pay off the debt. He was upset because his property was going to be divided among his four kids when he died, but he had to cash in on some of it to pay lawyer fees. He passed away in 2021
It’s not clear from the video, which makes no mention of this son-in-law part, which I feel is the essential question (and was wondering about from the beginning). Is it the case that the forrester marked exactly correctly what the SIL told them? If so, then yes, it’s entirely on him. But if they erred in marking according to his instructions, or if he pointed out an approximate boundary but requested they confirm first, then it would be on them
Who marked the trees and who hired them? It sounds like the timber buyer hired the loggers who marked the trees and cut the wrong ones but the logger was likely judgement proof (no assets/already defunct) so they went after the lumber buyer.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Not unless the lawyers failed to make that point clear. Judges wont clarify either parties position for the jury to understand. A lot of what lawyer's do at trial is theater to get the jury on their side, sometimes facts and details like that could get lost by the lawyer playing it up or forgetting to cover it properly. There seems to be a lot of details missing from this story so who knows.
It's possible no one knew the company that bought the trees was different than the ones who cut the trees, or maybe they are technically 3rd party but work exclusively for this company and really should be paid as employees instead of 1099.
Exactly what I was thinking!! How did this guy know that it was two different companies? He hired the people that buy the logs!! They hired the other company!!
@@abacab87 If the son-in-law of the couple was involved in the walking of the site then arguably the son-in-law is effectively the couple's agent. That means that a representative of the couple was involved in the walk. Good luck claiming that the couple was uninvolved in the worksite evaluation.
Its possible that the older couple or son hired the logger and could not or would not sue them. Theres a lot left out of this story. Wheres Paul Harvey?
Fascinating is right. Always love that you appear to be talking conversationally to us and not to just hear yourself. Clients had to feel well represented.
I had a similar tree cutting experience. I caught the logger about to cut down a tree on my property so the neighbors on the hill behind me could get a better view of the Bay. He stopped and left. The trees cut down previously to build the houses up the hill caused a flood on our property which flowed to an intersection, froze, and was a traffic hazzard. We were held responsible and required to put in extensive, and expensive, drainage pipes to solve the problem. Amazing how much water giant Douglas Fir trees absorb. This was in Bellingham, Washington, in the 80s. 😮
Your situation is where government failed again..!! The correct reason for the problem should have been ascertained and those folks should have paid the bill. I had a similar problem - bought property from the county, but I was later required to install a retaining wall, which the county knew was required but nothing in the sales documents...
The typical story is the person hires the cheapest person they can find, an unlicensed unbonded tree cutter (company?). If you guess probability of messing up a job would it be the licensed/bonded company or the unlicensed/uninsured guy you find on Craigslist? Which is a person with empty pockets. Which is a person with higher chance of messing things up. There was a big news story by me where a homeowner "hired" a guy to cut down a tree for the wood (like free service but he keeps the wood as payment). No license. No insurance. No appropriate equipment. No skills. Goes to cut a huge tree on a windy day. Tree falls onto/through the neighbor's house. Tree cutter just leaves. Homeowner had to pay like 3X the cost of a real tree cutting service just to get the cranes to get that tree off the neighbor's house. Then had to pay to have the tree cut up and removed. That's all before paying for the actual damages to the neighbor's house (quite extensive). Using cheap unlicensed/uninsured contractors is costly. And they have no pockets if things go wrong.
Out west we take our property and timber rights very seriously. I had to call police to have a family trespassed of my property, they were looking to cut a couple Christmas trees. They were dumbfounded I would be upset.
Out west? You think we don't in the East, where we have like 50x more forested land cover? Out East we take our property and timber rights EXTREMELY seriously.
Welcome to Idaho where it is every man for himself, many professions are not required to be insured or bonded. when things go south it is the guy or public entity who can afford the mostest lawyer wins. Sadly the legal profession is not held to standards that everyone else is.
They did sure the right people, a company didn't own the land, a company didn't claim to own the land. Did the person who gave the company have a survey done? Did they have the company do a survey and accept liability? What are you English? In the USA you're responsible if you sale someone elses car and claim it was a mistake, if you build your house on my land I'm not the guilty party, you are, nor is the construction company the guilty part; not unless they accepted liability to confirm it's being built on the correct lot anyway.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket No the lawyer didn't sue the right people if they lost. The people who originally sued did sue the right people, but the poster clearly isn't talking about that lawsuit but rather the lawsuit on the liability through negligence. i.e. If you listened to the story the land did have a survey and the trees were marked by the company. So at that stage you have a company that has stated the trees are on the land. To @Big_Old_Dog I suspect the whole answer is "it's complicated". If the company that was wanting to buy timber had hired the surveyor and marked the trees then one can claim it was their responsibility but my guess is they argued that the tree cutters cut additional trees or similar kind of thing but that might not be easy to disprove etc. It's the whole idea that there are three companies involved here, the surveyor, purchaser and cutters. Now the purchasers apparently hired the surveyor so you actually really have 2 people you could sue, the purchaser and cutters. The issue with this is that it gets down to who made the mistake, and who can you prove made the mistake. The purchaser can simply claim they didn't mark those trees, but the cutter can claim they only cut those marked. So it becomes an issue of who do you have proof of...and in this case it's probably having proof of neither side being in the wrong (despite knowing one of the two must be in the wrong). It does seem like the two companies should have been added as a countersuit as then you could counter either one of their claims using the other's evidence.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket That is part of what is unclear in the video. Steve did say that a survey was done. It wasn’t clear who marked the trees, and it wasn’t clear who hired the company that cut the trees.
In my highly surveyed European state, the most recent famous tree cutting cases have involved trees with very clear owners. One was a homeowner clear cutting trees in a protected nature preserve to get a better view and a bigger lawn. They have been slapped with a police complaint for criminal damage to city property that will take about a century to restore (unique ecosystem destroyed) . The other was a bunch of rowdy young people ages 17 to 27 (or less), who cut down a few big trees so they fell onto public roads at night . One tree fell on top of a car killing the driver who was a popular teacher on his way home . They are being tried in criminal court for criminal damage, reckless endangerment and negligent manslaughter . In neither case is there any apparent confusion about tree ownership . In this Idaho case, the proximate cause seems to be the family member that pointed out the property line when the arborist was marking trees to cut down .
In Australia a few councils have taken a unique solution when people cut down or poison trees that aren't theirs to enhance their view. On top of all the legal trouble and fines, they've then erected giant billboards that point out tree vandalism is a crime - right in place to block the view. So now the homeowners don't have "awful trees blocking the view", but a "lovely giant billboard" telling them (and everyone else) they're vandals and horrible people. Helps when rich people think the fine is worth the view.
Wow, the whole thing is weird!?! It almost sounds like they were looking for deep pockets the whole time!?! They agreed to $50k thinking they could get a lot more from the buyers. Thanks for the video Steve! No car rentals or HOAs involved!lol!
I have nothing but horrible memories from my dad going through so much shit especially when it came to removing trees on our property; sometimes it was neighbors threatening to sue if a tree wasn't removed, then suing after we took it down, sometimes it was the county with one officer saying a tree had to go and another saying it mustn't be felled under any circumstances (left hand not knowing what the right is doing type of issue), it was just one problem after another. It's been more than a decade since my parents sold that property but I still think back to that time, like, so much strife about fucking trees.
The Legal System in the U.S. has got its Fair Share of Issues. Responsible Land Owners need to Know Exactly where their Property Lines are or get a Survey, 🤪👎
It's a sad story but you are correct. If the property owner didn't know where the property pins were they should have had it surveyed and marked. The logger marked the trees before cutting. It was up to the property owner to make sure all trees were on his property. I bought a tract of land years ago and "everyone" knew where the property lines were EXCEPT when I had it surveyed it turned out "everybody" was VERY wrong. In some cases by hundreds of feet. (it was a large tract of land in a rural area)
I don't know about that. This should have been a summary disposition and not racked up so much in attorney bills. The attorneys should have filed that on day one and the judge should have said that there was no chance the plaintiff would win since he is suing the purchaser of the lumber not the company that cut it down. This feels to me like attorneys looking for a easy payday.
Did I mis-hear the part where Steve said a representative of the lumber company sent a forester to determine the west property line of the property at 07:20. There is something missing from this story.
What's betting the logger is just some dude with a chainsaw...and more specifically, some dude _without_ $50,000 and without insurance. No point suing him, Any judgement against would likely be uncollectable anyway.
So you're saying arrest them for destruction and theft? Fair enough. What I want to know is, in the sale agreement who was responsible for verifying the ownership of the tree's\land? Because to me the logger shouldn't be a viable option simply because the OWNER is expected to know where their property stops and apparently didn't. That's why you have a survey done.
Very likely, he may have assets but not enough to make it worth suing him, mind even he isn't liable if he was instructed to cut down the trees that were marked and someone else marked them.
Not the way it works. Civil vs criminal...Tree guy will successfully argue they operated in good faith that the trees were the customers...Cautionary tale about minding your business.
The number one reason for suing everybody and the kitchen sink is not because one of them has deep pockets but to get one of them to throw the other under the bus intentionally or not. Although they may point fingers at each other you can via discovery find the one who will most likely pay the settlement , be able to pay the settlement and be able to get a judgement against.
I got $2500 from a cable TV subcontractor who cut across my property instead of using the right of way. They cut the roots of a fairly large Poplar tree in the process. They offered me $500. I responded with $2500. They sent the legal papers to be signed. Less than a week later I had a certified check. No attorney fees, no judges, no suing the wrong people (cable TV company). The subcontractor didn't admit fault but agreed to settle and pay to not be sued. We had a nice vacation that year. It was 1995 or 96. The Poplar tree died 2 years later because of the root system being cut so badly. It makes good kindling.
Its reasons like this why when I purchased my 40 acres in Idaho I notified the neighbors that I'm having the property surveyed we then installed a fence on the property line overall 6 trees were directly on the property line and we just stopped the fence there and restarted on the other side. So far none of our neighbors have any intention of logging and we have a verbal understanding of if one decides to sell the joining neighbor gets first chance to save realtor fees.
i knew a guy from Florida. he lost a single tree in a storm, it was a pecan tree, maybe 5 feet round. insurance paid him back then 20K. it was only his shade tree.
I sold trees in Washington State and their was a State required legal contract between me and the timber company that logged the trees, it included a survey showing the boundaries of my land with all the trees marked that were to be cut and it concluded with a reforestation plan to doubly replace the trees that had been cut.
TLDR: If you're going to cull the trees on your land, make sure it's your land. 5:22 Ok wait, did the company buying the logs or did the individuals who thought they owned the tree's contract the logging? Because usually subcontracting is done by the company you hire, or in this case who is buying the lumber from you. If the owner had contracted the logger you'd think they'd know that, it sounds like they agreed to sale the tree's to the lumber company and the lumber company outsourced the contracting. Which makes this slightly less clear cut, what would make this simple is, does their contract say who's liable esponsible for ensuring the tree's on the list are on the right property or whatever?
I was stewarding a job in north western Virginia and the surveyors marked the right of way wrong and the right of way crew did what they do, cut all the trees in the boundary marked. Which turned out to be a huge deal when it was discovered by the landowners, for about a day until the gas company land man swatted them with checks and it was over. They ended up cutting about a 1/4 mile the wrong way 🤷🏻♂️ it happens occasionally. Very expensive mistake.
Resposibilty for one's own actions doesn't seem to matter anymore to most of our society. If you can hire a lawyer to sue another person for an obscene amount of money, no matter who is actually responsible, is all that matters in our greed driven society. And it doesn't matter anymore who gets hurt in the process. The people who cut down the wrong trees are the ones who are actually responsible for this costly mess. They are the ones who should be made to pay. But then that would mean they have to own up to their own mistake, and that isn't going to happen unless they decide to do the right thing.
Property owners are responsible for knowing and informing others about their property lines. The logger wouldn’t be expected to know property lines but the land owner or forester should have known the property lines and limits.
Cases like this is why I had a cattle fence installed around my entire property. If some moron cut all the my fully grown oaks on my property I would end up in jail.
Who contacted the Loggers? The homeowners or the Timber Company? If the timber company hired (subcontracted) the logging company, then the timber company can get their lost money from the logging company. If the homeowner hired the logging company, then they messed up.
This happens a lot in boondock in windy areas. The trees next to the road (the "Wind-row") are protection from high winds, valuable to the property owner across the road as well as the owner whose field is adjacent. Often property is bought and sold, with the disposition of the wind-row negotiated separately from the disposition of the land. That twenty-yard (or thirty-yard) strip next to the road is often owned by the property owner whose field the trees protect on the other side of the road.
In my experience, There are several parties involved. There is a survey company, that marks the property (assuming they did that). There is a company/person that cuts the trees. There is a company that sells the trees. There is a party that fixes the logging damage. The logger generally has very little money. You would be a fool to sue the logger, because if you won, he has no employer, he has a chain saw, a tractor, and some other equipment, and nothing to take. He might not even own a truck, he might move the logs to where they are sold. And in NYS, I think you can also sue for triple damages, but you cannot sue the buyer of the logs.
@pvccannon1966 > If there is one thing i know from this channel is NEVER cut down someone elses tree. lol And if you do, sell everything you have to your kids for $1, and then you become the one not worth suing because you have nothing.
We had a guy moving a house and he got to a spot in the road he hadn't planned well enough for and cut down this guy's tree to get past with the house he was moving and there was talk of $50,000 to replace the tree at the size it was. This was in Nebraska we have some Forest industry but not much.
The one thing i am not clear on is who marked the trees to be cut , as that seems to be the person who needs to be sued as they made the mistake that lead to entire mess.
Dammit Steve, I'm afraid to walk out my front door, I'd feel better if I was a barrister./lawyer. Thanks for bringing up these cases that affect the people
Arkansas Professional Surveyor here. Nobody was wronged by the courts or law. This would have been avoided by hiring a surveyor. It is a conscious decision to not use the only profession who can say what is owned. When people end up in these situations it is 100% their own fault. Laws don't need to change, people loose everything over bad decisions all the time. In Arkansas a land survey is required for logging, but they just don't. I suppose in Arkansas that you could argue that the wood cutter was negligent as he would be expected to know that a survey is required. I still think that is weak. Owner rolled the dice and didn't get a surveyor to guide them through this process. Perhaps the survey would cost more than the trees. If you are near a line, you can't afford to sell trees.
My father and his brother ran a little sawmill from the late 1940s to the early 1980s. Their source of trees was entities putting in new housing developments or new road alignments which needed to have trees cleared away. Or the occasional homeowner who had a tree that was starting to lean in the direction of their roof.... My dad and uncle did it all. They cut down the trees (and in most cases, their "fee" for cutting down the trees was to keep the logs). They milled the lumber, stacked it in a big drying shed for a period of time, then sold it. I don't recall hearing anything about the possibility of accidentally cutting down the wrong trees. I do remember one time seeing yellow caution tape wrapped around several tree trunks and being told those were the trees to be cut down. I also recall customers calling my dad at home very early in the morning to place orders, because once they got to the sawmill, they often could not hear the phone ringing. And for most of their run, the answering machine had not yet been invented. They managed, sort of, but didn't make exactly a ton of money. One regular customer was a famous movie star who bought lumber to build fences and horse corrals. My dad really liked her; not because she was a movie star, but because she was friendly and would engage him in conversation. I doubt he ever saw one of her movies.
Interestingly, in the UK we have a system called a ' Tree Preservation Order, TPO ' Any tree with an order granted cannot be cut down, and if it is then it is deemed a criminal act. Anyone can apply for a ' TPO ' even for a tree that is not on their property, ie, a neighbours property. Obviously there has to be good reason for an Order to be granted.
The way logs that are worth $6,000 can cause damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars is because of replacement value. A single large tree worth $1,000 for lumber could only be replanted with an equal sized living tree for many times that amount.
It's pretty easy for $1,600 of lumber to be worth $100,000+ in damages. One value is the lumber value. The other is the replacement value of the trees. If someone cut down 19 trees on my property, I'm suing not for the lumber value but the replacement value. And replacing fully grown, large trees is COSTLY.
From what's understandable, the wood-purchaser is the sawyer. They saw the plot survey, marked the trees. They contracted with a tree-cutting company and communicated that they've marked the trees that should be logged. This logging company cut all the trees that they saw marked. They delivered the logs to the sawyer. The blame/ liability lies partially on the homeowner, but mostly with the sawyer THAT ACTUALLY MARKED the wrong trees.
It is hardly realistic to expect lawyers and judges to do anything to reduce the cost of litigation when they make money doing it and they're all scratching each other's backs.
The speedy trial thing only applies to criminal actions. But anyway, you don't know why it took so long, so you can't say who was at fault for the delay. It could well have been the couple pursuing the case.
Well, it only took six years to get to trial....from the incident in 2009. We don't know, without going to the actual court records, when the lawsuit was first filed. So, the trial may have been relatively speedy. The appeals process however.....🤔
1. Good lecture on how to practice law. 2. The outcome of the lawsuit you addressed was just as it should have been. How could anyone justify the lumber buying company? I assume there was a prevailing party attorney's fee clause and that this is why the couple was liable for so much. I can hardly wait to hear about the legal malpractice claim that ensues.
I had that bar scene play out 20 years ago after a buddy's wedding. We were with some of the bridesmaids and a couple bouncers kept trying to dance with them and they weren't having it. The bouncers decided this was somehow our doing so we when went to leave one guy blocked the door and told me I wasn't going anywhere. A second bouncer sucker punched me in the temple and they proceeded to waylay every guy in our group. I was thrown down a flight of stairs and came to at the bottom of the stairwell. An off duty cop working security said he didn't see a thing. I filed a police report but because the cop and the bouncer said essentially I provoked the confrontation and the bar deleted their security video I had nothing to go on.
You may not have had a criminal complaint. However, you likely had grounds for a civil judgement. The bar deleting the video would have been thought mighty suspicious by a jury, and could have given you an award.
You stated early on the seller went with the buyer to Mark the trees to be harvested. That's where the error and faults lie. The cutters just cut what was marked. Yeah, the seller should know tgeur property lines and should check with the neighbor for any close to the border
Another point of contest... the property lines in North Idaho have changed! When North Idaho was originally surveyed, the surveyor was off by 20 feet to the north and a similar number to the west. The map projections were updated in the 1980s - but the deeds were not adjusted. This is likely why the offending neighbor was on the wrong side of the property line.
A forester can’t survey a property line in any state. That’s a major issue you see with timber companies. They have their forester mark the lines when cruising timber & they don’t actually measure or even know how to survey. They used to go by any old fence or evidence on the ground, now they use an app. They never get it right and sometimes they aren’t even close. It creates a lot of law suits.
the claim that 19 full size trees were only worth a few thousand is total bullshit. a full size tree replacement value is at least 25,000 each. everyone this couple hired were totally incompetent. the lawyer, the logger and the surveyor.
I can not believe how many people on this thread seem to think that this was like someone came along someones estate manor drive and removed a row of stately oaks that would be worth a fortune at a sawmill. These are 19 average pine/ firs going to building lumber or pulp at the paper mill in North Idaho. North Idaho is basically covered everywhere with these trees unless the land is actively cleared or farmed. Depending on what they were and the size 19 trees could be worth $200 or $10,000. The price mentioned seems very average for the area. Under no circumstances in North Idaho is a judge going to tell someone they have to have a tree company come in and "replace" 100 foot trees on some remote property. I do not know what cushy suburb setting people are imagining but these are not decorative hardwoods.
@@mikecrooks8085 so you think its okay to cut down your neighbors 100 tall trees, pay them the value the wood would be, give them a 6 inch replacement and tell them that in 50 years they wouldnt be able to tell the difference? really?
@@scottmcshannon6821 yep. You're not entitled to a quarter million dollars over a dozen or so trees. It's wood, for heaven's sake. Your view and your shade has no monetary value.
Demonstrably false. The view and the shade directly affect property value, that is why tree law is so complicated and exists in the first place. If it were just the trees monetary value, it'd be treated as a simple property dispute, instead of being a whole damn thing.
My cousin had the same thing happen to him. The man who owns the land next to his, sold his timber. They cleared it. But then they knocked down my cousin’s barbed wire fence, and kept on cutting. Over three acres.
Why would a company buying lumber from someone have to go and mark the property lines? Can you imagine if the lumber was cut down in say Thailand? Would the company have to go across the ocean to mark the property lines? Sounds like the logging company was either a friend/ family they did not want to sue or they knew the loggers didn't have the money and it wouldn't be worth suing.
I mean, yeah, whoever was cutting the trees and going to the location would. Why would a random American lumber team go mark trees in Thailand? Do you need to take your mediation?
When a judge says that the legal system failed the elderly couple, is he really suggesting that their lawyer failed them? Is he hinting that the elderly couple should sue their lawyer?
Maybe, unless The couple straight told the lawyer to sue the buyer, or didn't disclose to the lawyer that the buyer and logger weren't the same person.
In Virginia the property taking law was re-written a few decades ago to provide monetary damages to revenue generating property...example being a lot was taken by imminent domain , but the owner had rose bushes on it he would sell flowers and clippings off of.
Here in southern West Virginia. Logging someone else’s land is a HUGE deal. Just cutting a big red oak can cost you 10X the value per square inch. If the judge so orders it. Game wardens and conservation officers don’t play with these people that log. They will cite you for equipment violations. Such as harnesses and not having fencing around the logging area. 19 trees. Depending on size and type of tree. Could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. Have seen this very thing happen right where I live.
Yep I've been through this. Logging "companies" only exist as long as a single job and somehow never have any assets, because they rent all their equipment from their owners, and coincidentally the exact price of that rental is the exact amount of the logging contract. Thus there's nothing to sue. If you're not in a state that allows civil piercing of the corporate veil, then there's nothing you can do.
As a Realtor Real Estate Broker for almost 35 years I have seen a property line problem now and then. Had one where one party hired a surveyor to clarify a line (there was an old fence that some felt was the line). The other party also hired a surveyor (a different one). The two results put the lines on either side of the fence by about 10 feet each. It went to court and the judge split the difference and left the line with the old fence line. In my general area of practice there is a widely known discrepancy of around 20 feet to as much as 200 feet which was caused by the original government survey. So when questions come up they must be handled by surveyors and usually establish certain lines going forward. Not everyone is always happy but at least the problem is addressed. The Tree-Cutting Dispute in today's video seems to showcase a lack of forethought and sophistication on the part of the older couple wanting to cash in on a few trees. Once in a while a situation just gets started wrong and goes downhill from there.
I am very confused by this case. If the timber company couldn't be sued because they did not cut the tree down, why should the couple be sued? They did not cut the tree down either, the logging company did.
@@zacharyhenderson2902did they? They don’t actually say that in the story, it actually sounds like the purchaser arranged the survey and the logging. But in their contract they were just buying the lumber so the others probably agreed to get paid as the trees were sold.
I used to have a tree service and in the early days I hooked up with a builder and all went well and I took too much for granted and I trusted him and his word and I ended up cutting down a well over 100 year old Ponderosa pine. The homeowner and the builder both said it was on the property. I should’ve done my due diligence and checked all corners instead I cut the tree down and spent a year and a half in litigation. Luckily I had insurance the homeowner and the builder were fined $1 million. I was fine $10,000 and I learned a big lesson right then. Don’t trust anybody trust yourself do your job. Good luck.
If you sued the wrong person then your lawyer sucks. Time for another 15 year legal saga suing their lawyer for legal malpractice.
Probably just sued who could pay. I wouldn’t be surprised if the loggers were a few uninsured guys who would never be able to pay
@@johnkorth8599 Its still legal malpractice because you're going to lose any case where you sue the wrong party and have to pay all the legal fees. That's why the courts said the legal process failed this couple.
Yep, but at least his lawyer was good enough to convince that chief judge that an arrogant rich guy who frivolously sues innocent parties was actually somehow a victim because he had a wife with cancer.
@@Grrrnthumb Rich guy? Dude sold $6500 worth of trees and will probably lose his house to pay all the legal fees. You must have a very strange idea of what rich is.
@@Grrrnthumb Someone who doesn't understand anything speaks out on the internet pov:
I'm a professional forester. Every time you tell stories like these, I have many questions about the case. I get hired by landowners to mark, measure, and then sell timber from their property. It sounds like I would have been the guy that was hired to mark this sale. That could have been either marking and measuring the trees that are to be taken, or locating and marking the property line. In either case the responsibility would be mine to get it exactly right. I know how much trouble I would be in were I to botch the assignment. And I couldn't blame anybody else. I have had landowners tell me they owned land that they didn't. I have had survey stakes be located in a different place than the tax map has said. That's what you are paying me to do, get all my ducks in a row before the transaction is made. Loggers pay beaucoup insurance against this type of catastrophe, and are protected should a claim be made. So why weren't they sued? Unless the loggers were penniless, weekend warrior types who had no money to litigate for. Lastly, Steve, you say you have a hard time believing that the trees were worth $1,600 (or $84 apiece, on average). Everybody thinks trees are worth a mint, individually. I can't say what they were worth sitting here in my office, a continent away, but I can tell you this. Idaho is mostly softwood sawtimber, good for building material. Here in the northeast, White pine is the species most prized for two-by material and beams. That goes for about $100 per thousand board foot, standing. More if you cut, skid, and deliver yourself. For a white pine to be worth $84 it would have to be 800 board feet, which is a very big, conspicuously big tree. Just want to dispel the thought that every standing tree is hugely valuable. A black walnut 3 foot through and 40 feet to the first limb, yes, but a white pine 18 inches at chest high, no.
Trees have more than one value though, do they not? Sure there’s the value you’re talking about which is the value of the wood, but there’s also the replacement value. Trees provide shade(reducing AC bills) privacy(do they need to build a fence now?) they add property value(what if the new buyer no longer wants the house without the trees?)
Selling a house nestled in tree covered lot vs a bare lot, the tree covered lot is worth more.
If they sued for replacement value I would think each tree is worth 25k minimum. You might know; what would it cost to buy, haul and transplant a mature tree? (And enough roots to keep it alive)
You are the first person on here that seems to understand what the system is for that should work for everybody. Steve said at 07:20 that the lumber company sent a forester to establish the west property boundary (of the sale). Then nothing else is mentioned about said forester, who he worked for or who paid him. It is like he is of no consequence. Something is being left out of this story.
I've got a black walnut about 18 inches diameter and 10 feet to the first limb. That's likely the most valuable tree on my 2.5 acres, and I imagine that's not worth a whole lot.
You think replacing a 100 foot tree is $85? That makes me question everything in your post.
@@narrowgroundentertainmentindividually, its worthless. If you owned 30 acres so a logger could ship a truckload of them (as well as other truckloads of timber) it would be worth a lot.
we had a similar situation with a single tree at the corner of our property being cut by a new neighbor who had purchased a lot and was about to build a house. But in this case it was not a mistake, it was deliberate. When they started clearing the lot we had a surveyor very precisely mark that corner and line, and we discussed the clearing with the neighbor. We have 60 acres, and cannot see this spot from our home.
He asked to cut the 100 year old, over three foot trunk diameter, 100' tall maple that sat about five feet INSIDE the corner of our property. We refused. Based on how he reacted, we sent him a certified letter stating clearly that the tree was not to be touched.
He then moved the property markers and had a tree company cut the tree while we were away. When confronted, he laughed and said "The most it will cost me is three times the value, maybe a thousand bucks". This was said in front of a police officer.
well...the local court did not take that at all well, and we won three times the REPLACEMENT cost. Not that we DID replace it (I mean...how exactly do you move and plant a 60 ton tree?), but we got paid the estimated cost to do so times three.
The neighbor had to sell his lot to cover the judgement.
That would be your neighbor's problem of how to move and replant that tree!! I would insist that he replant it. Because he STOLE it!! Plus I would use the "K" word too.. You know like "kuller" but with an "i" and not a "u". Because in my opinion that is what he is!
Happens all the time in FL where I used to live. The city and county had laws against removing large oaks, mostly, just because they are in the way of some developer's cash flow. Most developers cut them down, said, "Whoops," and included the fine in the cost of the $2 million dollar home.
Moving property markers is a tree guy's nightmare.
@@ninjalectualx You spelled "Joe Biden zombie" wrong. . . 😂
Thank you for sharing this! Awful that the tree was cut, but what a great conclusion! IMO triple cost of replacement needs to be the standard sentence for illegal tree cutting.
We talked to the neighbors, had our property surveyed twice, and put up a fence. Watching disputes like this makes me so glad we did.
This would be a great way to do it. A lot of people are way to trusting in other people. However, the guy's wife was dieing, so probably not in the best state of mind to come up with a plan to deal with a screw up like this.
Good fences make good neighbors.
Doesn’t always work, sometimes the neighbors will tell you to pound sand, and try to fight the construction crew.
I know that was one of our experiences. Consulted the parcel map, a surveyor who marked out the lines, talked with the rear neighbor over the fact that a fence was going up. Engaged in a bit of verbal discourse over the property line not being where the neighbor thought it was even though their pets seemed to act like it was their yard.
Then on construction day consulted with a sheriff to preempt a more pointed discussion over the fence. He informed them that a civil court was the way to handle their disagreement, and if they didn’t back off he’d give them a trespassing charge.
Sometimes neighbors can eat an entire bag of bullocks.
@wyominghome4857 If any neighbor of mine is having trees felled, I'm taking the day off work to protect _my_ trees on _my_ property!
That said, if I contracted a felling company to harvest trees on _my_ property, I would take the day off work to ensure that the tree feller didn't remove any of my neighbor's trees.
It's hard and expensive to do this if you have many acres of property, though.
Once again, the ONLY people making any money are the attorneys.
The legal system too. Everyone from Judges bailiffs to lawn Care, building maintenance etc. has to be paid.
And the neighbors who sued their elderly neighbors with cancer over $1600 in trees but took them for $50k... There's a special place in the afterlife for them
@@mattgayda2840 The guy STOLE trees. Depending on the trees $50k may be proper. Walnut for example. THEN they sued the lumber mill because . . . why? It was the property OWNER'S responsibility to know their property. They went after them just to get a payday AND LOST.
@@mattgayda2840 Why does being old or being sick make you the victim for destruction of someone else's property? You're absurd, do you think the people who murdered someone in an armed robbery are the victims because "they had no viable alternative", like getting a job?
I'd say over a dozen people earned paychecks if this took over a decade. He stimulated the local economy.
So everyone hired by this couple was incompetent. The wood company, the logger, the surveyor(possibly), and their lawyer.
Not necc the lawyer; They can only sue where a potential $ source exists...
@@brentfarvors192can sue anyone but would a lawyer take the case if there no insurance. which is the biggest failure of the court system. Lawyer are only there for money not justice
Good lawyers aren't cheap. Cheap lawyers aren't good.
That lesson is taught over and over again.
@@robertthomas5906 so justice/being made whole is lock behind money.
@@robertthomas5906 Good cheap lawyers don't stay cheap long
Apart from HOA issues, tree disputes are probably the biggest source of property disputes. I’m actually surprised, as the law on this topic has been settled for centuries. One of the first lessons is: be REALLY sure of where the property lines are.
The second element is: TALK to your neighbor, before you do anything. Get on the same page. Can’t agree? Get professional advice. Talk to the city. Make sure you’re dealing with a real, licensed and bonded, contractor. Preventing disputes is the first step.
Otherwise . . . LEARN before arguing. There’s not anything you can add to the centuries of law on this topic. How to value trees, etc., is part of that record. Don’t act like a ‘sovereign citizen’ and try to re-invent the rules in your favor.
Real, licensed and bonded, contractor in Idaho Ha, ha ha ha, ha. People who know better here in North Idaho get contractors from Washington that require bonding and insurance.
Maybe they really weren't neighbors. Maybe this "Elderly Couple" just owned some land somewhere. Theres something going on and the truth isn't in the story Steve told.
@tj92834 this incident happened before 2012 and the homeowner was about 80 years old. The forrester misread a map and the neighbor over-reacted with a miney grab.
I'm in northern Michigan. This fall my new neighbor clear cut a number of our trees. He told us not to worry he used an APP on his phone so he did not cut our trees. We had a survey done they were all on our property. We had an arborist come in and estimate the value. We heard chainsaws again on our property. We went to the area and listened to the neighbor's son and his friend talking before we approached them. The friend was telling the son his dad was nuts if he thought they would cut up all the trees and drag them onto the neighbors property for four hundred and fifty dollars. Some of theses trees were over six feet in circumference. The arborist had estimated over ten thousand for clean up. We had our lawyer on the phone and he told us to tell them to leave. We had called him to let him hear the chainsaws running. Our lawyer sent them a bill and the neighbor filed a claim with his homeowners insurance saying he accidently cut our trees down. Waiting to hear from his insurance.
Going to be bad for the new neighbour. The dragging to property line says the action was taken knowing that they were taking trees off property they did not own, so criminal trespass at a minimum, and the value of the stolen lumber makes it a felony.
@@SeanBZA need proof to secure the lawsuit.
Why didnt you film them though?
Lol, 6ft in diameter... Cool story bro
@@10ftSamsquanchy He said circumference, not diameter.
You said the land boundry was surveyed...isnt the surveyor liable?
The tree cutting service did the surveying
@@stevenwoodward5923 would have to rewatch, but I thought the statement was that the loggers, "had the boundary surveyed "
He said forestry surveyor, so it sounds like it someone to survey valuable trees. I don't think it was a property line surveyor.
How do you know the survey was inaccurate?
How we know? Because there was a lawsuit. The wrong trees were cut.
Steve, I can tell you from experience that anytime you deal with loggers, you will get screwed. I just went through this last year, and the claim that the logs were only worth $1600 is what the TIMBER COMPANY claims. Same thing happened in my case, where the company told me the logs were only "tie logs" which means they are used for railroad ties. These are a lower graded timber than "veneer logs", which are typically used for furniture or even dimensional lumber. When I checked with the log yard that bought the logs, over half were indeed "veneer logs" but the timber contractor only paid me for low quality "tie logs'. The lumber business in notoriously corrupt.
Sounds like theyre screwing over landownders on a massive scale. Day by day @tj92834
My cousin had someone come to his door and offer $12,000 for the trees on his property. He took their card, saying he had to think about it. He called a different log buyer and got an offer for $21,000.
@@tj92834 Don't know where you get your information, but here in my area, loggers buy small timber stands. In my case, a tornado had created what is known as a "blowdown" where I had 43 trees that were toppled, pulling the root balls out of the ground. Cutting and removing these is NOT "tree care", it is "log harvesting" and is even covered under our state's Department of Agriculture rules.
It's corrupt all over. We sold an inherited place in Florida in a place where there's rapid development occurring a while back and one of the developers wanted to buy it told us the septic tank lines went over the property line and would cost a bunch of money to sort out (they weren't) and another told us they'd have to pay to tear everything down and off the lot (it's still there 5 years later). One of them appeared to be in league with the realtor we were using so she got the boot. We got the price we wanted so I'm fairly happy but it definitely left a bad taste.
@@tj92834 No it isn't. I plant 3000 pines every 15 years and have loggers remove a bunch of trees from my property for profit. It's not tree care.
It wasn't clear who hired the tree cutter, but if they were sub-contracted by the lumber company, wouldn't the lumber company be responsible? Based on the fact that the lumer company had to survey the property leads me to believe that they were handling all the logistics of the project.
It sounds like that is what happened but they only had a contract with them for the sale of the trees not anything else.
@@glenecollins
If the lumber-buying company sub-contracted the cutting of the trees... .then this decision is screw up.
From what I read, Eyer (the elderly man in this case) hired the Idaho Forest Group logging company. This company sent out a Forrester to help Eyer’s son-in-law identify the trees and flag the boundary. This Forrester then recommended a logger to cut down the trees. The logger cut down the trees that were identified and inside the boundary that was marked by the Forrester and Eyer’s son-in-law. Eyer sued the Idaho Forest Group because he claimed they did not mark the boundaries correctly. The court ruled the Idaho Forest Group had no legal duty to mark the boundaries. In other words it was Eyer’s fault. Eyer didn’t like the ruling so he filed an appeal that eventually ended up at the State Supreme Court, but he still lost. All those court battles cost him $37k for his own attorney, $95k for the Idaho Forest Group attorney’s and $50k to settle with his neighbor. He mortgaged his home for $200k to pay off the debt. He was upset because his property was going to be divided among his four kids when he died, but he had to cash in on some of it to pay lawyer fees. He passed away in 2021
Bet his son is pissed, no inheritance.
@@jilbertb I bet his other kids are pissed at the son-in-law who helped mark the boundaries.
It’s not clear from the video, which makes no mention of this son-in-law part, which I feel is the essential question (and was wondering about from the beginning). Is it the case that the forrester marked exactly correctly what the SIL told them? If so, then yes, it’s entirely on him. But if they erred in marking according to his instructions, or if he pointed out an approximate boundary but requested they confirm first, then it would be on them
See I knew this lawsuit stuff was still going on. He's acting like he just heard of it now. We've been hearing about it for the past like 5 years
The tree value is the cost to replace/replant the tree, and mature trees are quite expensive
Not necessarily
@@dennisdupuis1567 Yes, necessarily. Mature, large trees of any species are quite expensive.
Excellent analysis! The “sue everyone in the area with deep pockets” mentality of lawyers needs to be reign ed in-
Who marked the trees and who hired them? It sounds like the timber buyer hired the loggers who marked the trees and cut the wrong ones but the logger was likely judgement proof (no assets/already defunct) so they went after the lumber buyer.
That seems likely, but if so, the timber buyer would not have won. It was his “agent” that erred, so he would still be liable.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Not unless the lawyers failed to make that point clear. Judges wont clarify either parties position for the jury to understand. A lot of what lawyer's do at trial is theater to get the jury on their side, sometimes facts and details like that could get lost by the lawyer playing it up or forgetting to cover it properly. There seems to be a lot of details missing from this story so who knows.
That makes the most sense. Thats why he paid the 50k. He paid half and the cutters paid the other.
The more info i learn about this, the less i have sympathy for the couple that is ordered to pay.
The lawyer was incompetent. They didn’t sue the right party, but the party that bought the lumber hired the logging company, right?
It's possible no one knew the company that bought the trees was different than the ones who cut the trees, or maybe they are technically 3rd party but work exclusively for this company and really should be paid as employees instead of 1099.
That was a $37,000 lawyer too.
Exactly what I was thinking!! How did this guy know that it was two different companies? He hired the people that buy the logs!! They hired the other company!!
@@abacab87 If the son-in-law of the couple was involved in the walking of the site then arguably the son-in-law is effectively the couple's agent. That means that a representative of the couple was involved in the walk. Good luck claiming that the couple was uninvolved in the worksite evaluation.
Its possible that the older couple or son hired the logger and could not or would not sue them. Theres a lot left out of this story. Wheres Paul Harvey?
Fascinating is right. Always love that you appear to be talking conversationally to us and not to just hear yourself. Clients had to feel well represented.
I had a similar tree cutting experience. I caught the logger about to cut down a tree on my property so the neighbors on the hill behind me could get a better view of the Bay. He stopped and left. The trees cut down previously to build the houses up the hill caused a flood on our property which flowed to an intersection, froze, and was a traffic hazzard. We were held responsible and required to put in extensive, and expensive, drainage pipes to solve the problem. Amazing how much water giant Douglas Fir trees absorb. This was in Bellingham, Washington, in the 80s. 😮
Your situation is where government failed again..!! The correct reason for the problem should have been ascertained and those folks should have paid the bill. I had a similar problem - bought property from the county, but I was later required to install a retaining wall, which the county knew was required but nothing in the sales documents...
The typical story is the person hires the cheapest person they can find, an unlicensed unbonded tree cutter (company?). If you guess probability of messing up a job would it be the licensed/bonded company or the unlicensed/uninsured guy you find on Craigslist? Which is a person with empty pockets. Which is a person with higher chance of messing things up.
There was a big news story by me where a homeowner "hired" a guy to cut down a tree for the wood (like free service but he keeps the wood as payment). No license. No insurance. No appropriate equipment. No skills. Goes to cut a huge tree on a windy day. Tree falls onto/through the neighbor's house. Tree cutter just leaves. Homeowner had to pay like 3X the cost of a real tree cutting service just to get the cranes to get that tree off the neighbor's house. Then had to pay to have the tree cut up and removed. That's all before paying for the actual damages to the neighbor's house (quite extensive).
Using cheap unlicensed/uninsured contractors is costly. And they have no pockets if things go wrong.
From what was said in the story it sounded like the buyer arranged the survey and the logging but they only had a contract for the purchase.
Out west we take our property and timber rights very seriously. I had to call police to have a family trespassed of my property, they were looking to cut a couple Christmas trees. They were dumbfounded I would be upset.
Out west? You think we don't in the East, where we have like 50x more forested land cover? Out East we take our property and timber rights EXTREMELY seriously.
@@rrai1999You’re forgetting the large amounts of land that are neither the west nor the east where there isn’t a lot of forested land.
Breaths in...
TREE LAW!
Measure twice cut once! 😂
Haha! I saw what you did there!
If it involves a saw, that's the law. 😁
My Jim said that ALL the time! He was a carpenter. And I sew. We were in perfect agreement😊
Measure a few more times for good measure.
I've cut it twice and it is still too short!
So, you're saying the judge made a stump speech on the law regarding the right to speedy trial in civil litigation?
Bah-dah-BOOMP! !!!
Really going out on a limb with that pun.
Fir goodness' sake, stop with the puns!
Quit tree-ting this like it's a joke!
Why didn't their lawyer sue the right company? The logger must have liability insurance to cover E&Os.
The should sue their lawyer for malpractice
Welcome to Idaho where it is every man for himself, many professions are not required to be insured or bonded. when things go south it is the guy or public entity who can afford the mostest lawyer wins. Sadly the legal profession is not held to standards that everyone else is.
They did sure the right people, a company didn't own the land, a company didn't claim to own the land. Did the person who gave the company have a survey done? Did they have the company do a survey and accept liability? What are you English? In the USA you're responsible if you sale someone elses car and claim it was a mistake, if you build your house on my land I'm not the guilty party, you are, nor is the construction company the guilty part; not unless they accepted liability to confirm it's being built on the correct lot anyway.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket No the lawyer didn't sue the right people if they lost. The people who originally sued did sue the right people, but the poster clearly isn't talking about that lawsuit but rather the lawsuit on the liability through negligence. i.e. If you listened to the story the land did have a survey and the trees were marked by the company. So at that stage you have a company that has stated the trees are on the land.
To @Big_Old_Dog I suspect the whole answer is "it's complicated". If the company that was wanting to buy timber had hired the surveyor and marked the trees then one can claim it was their responsibility but my guess is they argued that the tree cutters cut additional trees or similar kind of thing but that might not be easy to disprove etc.
It's the whole idea that there are three companies involved here, the surveyor, purchaser and cutters. Now the purchasers apparently hired the surveyor so you actually really have 2 people you could sue, the purchaser and cutters. The issue with this is that it gets down to who made the mistake, and who can you prove made the mistake. The purchaser can simply claim they didn't mark those trees, but the cutter can claim they only cut those marked. So it becomes an issue of who do you have proof of...and in this case it's probably having proof of neither side being in the wrong (despite knowing one of the two must be in the wrong). It does seem like the two companies should have been added as a countersuit as then you could counter either one of their claims using the other's evidence.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket That is part of what is unclear in the video. Steve did say that a survey was done. It wasn’t clear who marked the trees, and it wasn’t clear who hired the company that cut the trees.
@@christianlibertarian5488a forestry survey is usually a survey to identify valuable trees, not to mark boundaries
THANK YOU
In my highly surveyed European state, the most recent famous tree cutting cases have involved trees with very clear owners. One was a homeowner clear cutting trees in a protected nature preserve to get a better view and a bigger lawn. They have been slapped with a police complaint for criminal damage to city property that will take about a century to restore (unique ecosystem destroyed) . The other was a bunch of rowdy young people ages 17 to 27 (or less), who cut down a few big trees so they fell onto public roads at night . One tree fell on top of a car killing the driver who was a popular teacher on his way home . They are being tried in criminal court for criminal damage, reckless endangerment and negligent manslaughter . In neither case is there any apparent confusion about tree ownership .
In this Idaho case, the proximate cause seems to be the family member that pointed out the property line when the arborist was marking trees to cut down .
Rowdy young people are of age, so should be in Jail.
In Australia a few councils have taken a unique solution when people cut down or poison trees that aren't theirs to enhance their view. On top of all the legal trouble and fines, they've then erected giant billboards that point out tree vandalism is a crime - right in place to block the view. So now the homeowners don't have "awful trees blocking the view", but a "lovely giant billboard" telling them (and everyone else) they're vandals and horrible people. Helps when rich people think the fine is worth the view.
Wow, the whole thing is weird!?! It almost sounds like they were looking for deep pockets the whole time!?! They agreed to $50k thinking they could get a lot more from the buyers. Thanks for the video Steve! No car rentals or HOAs involved!lol!
Somehow I suspect that the news article left out a lot of details that are important to knowing why this happened.
My guess is the logger had no money. Excellent tort law review. I had a crazy torts professor in law school and this brought back memories. ❤
I have nothing but horrible memories from my dad going through so much shit especially when it came to removing trees on our property; sometimes it was neighbors threatening to sue if a tree wasn't removed, then suing after we took it down, sometimes it was the county with one officer saying a tree had to go and another saying it mustn't be felled under any circumstances (left hand not knowing what the right is doing type of issue), it was just one problem after another. It's been more than a decade since my parents sold that property but I still think back to that time, like, so much strife about fucking trees.
The Legal System in the U.S. has got its Fair Share of Issues. Responsible Land Owners need to Know Exactly where their Property Lines are or get a Survey, 🤪👎
Surveys disagree with each other and with the official maps.
Why do you capitalize random words like that? Is that the title of your new book?
There was no miscarriage of justice here. Know your property lines before you do things.
It's a sad story but you are correct. If the property owner didn't know where the property pins were they should have had it surveyed and marked. The logger marked the trees before cutting. It was up to the property owner to make sure all trees were on his property. I bought a tract of land years ago and "everyone" knew where the property lines were EXCEPT when I had it surveyed it turned out "everybody" was VERY wrong. In some cases by hundreds of feet. (it was a large tract of land in a rural area)
I don't know about that. This should have been a summary disposition and not racked up so much in attorney bills. The attorneys should have filed that on day one and the judge should have said that there was no chance the plaintiff would win since he is suing the purchaser of the lumber not the company that cut it down. This feels to me like attorneys looking for a easy payday.
Did I mis-hear the part where Steve said a representative of the lumber company sent a forester to determine the west property line of the property at 07:20. There is something missing from this story.
You must be a lumberjack and attorney. Could have made out big with this guy.
Yes I live in the mountains and have done logging... it is the Forester who marks the trees and let you know what can be cut...@mikecrooks8085
This is why you only smile and wave to your neighbors and never get involved in conversations.
What's betting the logger is just some dude with a chainsaw...and more specifically, some dude _without_ $50,000 and without insurance. No point suing him, Any judgement against would likely be uncollectable anyway.
So you're saying arrest them for destruction and theft? Fair enough.
What I want to know is, in the sale agreement who was responsible for verifying the ownership of the tree's\land? Because to me the logger shouldn't be a viable option simply because the OWNER is expected to know where their property stops and apparently didn't. That's why you have a survey done.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusketit sounds like a survey was done, it was ignored
Very likely, he may have assets but not enough to make it worth suing him, mind even he isn't liable if he was instructed to cut down the trees that were marked and someone else marked them.
Not the way it works. Civil vs criminal...Tree guy will successfully argue they operated in good faith that the trees were the customers...Cautionary tale about minding your business.
The logger was Jeff from the trailer park because he was lowest bidder
The number one reason for suing everybody and the kitchen sink is not because one of them has deep pockets but to get one of them to throw the other under the bus intentionally or not.
Although they may point fingers at each other you can via discovery find the one who will most likely pay the settlement , be able to pay the settlement and be able to get a judgement against.
I got $2500 from a cable TV subcontractor who cut across my property instead of using the right of way. They cut the roots of a fairly large Poplar tree in the process. They offered me $500. I responded with $2500. They sent the legal papers to be signed. Less than a week later I had a certified check. No attorney fees, no judges, no suing the wrong people (cable TV company). The subcontractor didn't admit fault but agreed to settle and pay to not be sued. We had a nice vacation that year. It was 1995 or 96. The Poplar tree died 2 years later because of the root system being cut so badly. It makes good kindling.
Its reasons like this why when I purchased my 40 acres in Idaho I notified the neighbors that I'm having the property surveyed we then installed a fence on the property line overall 6 trees were directly on the property line and we just stopped the fence there and restarted on the other side. So far none of our neighbors have any intention of logging and we have a verbal understanding of if one decides to sell the joining neighbor gets first chance to save realtor fees.
i knew a guy from Florida. he lost a single tree in a storm, it was a pecan tree, maybe 5 feet round. insurance paid him back then 20K. it was only his shade tree.
You showed up in my feed, I like it, subbed.
14:40 My guess is because the trees were cut down by "Our son in-laws landscaping company" and they don't want his company insurance to skyrocket.
I sold trees in Washington State and their was a State required legal contract between me and the timber company that logged the trees, it included a survey showing the boundaries of my land with all the trees marked that were to be cut and it concluded with a reforestation plan to doubly replace the trees that had been cut.
Should have had the property surveyed.
Love your channel, Steve!
TLDR: If you're going to cull the trees on your land, make sure it's your land.
5:22 Ok wait, did the company buying the logs or did the individuals who thought they owned the tree's contract the logging? Because usually subcontracting is done by the company you hire, or in this case who is buying the lumber from you. If the owner had contracted the logger you'd think they'd know that, it sounds like they agreed to sale the tree's to the lumber company and the lumber company outsourced the contracting. Which makes this slightly less clear cut, what would make this simple is, does their contract say who's liable
esponsible for ensuring the tree's on the list are on the right property or whatever?
I was stewarding a job in north western Virginia and the surveyors marked the right of way wrong and the right of way crew did what they do, cut all the trees in the boundary marked. Which turned out to be a huge deal when it was discovered by the landowners, for about a day until the gas company land man swatted them with checks and it was over.
They ended up cutting about a 1/4 mile the wrong way 🤷🏻♂️ it happens occasionally. Very expensive mistake.
Resposibilty for one's own actions doesn't seem to matter anymore to most of our society. If you can hire a lawyer to sue another person for an obscene amount of money, no matter who is actually responsible, is all that matters in our greed driven society. And it doesn't matter anymore who gets hurt in the process.
The people who cut down the wrong trees are the ones who are actually responsible for this costly mess. They are the ones who should be made to pay. But then that would mean they have to own up to their own mistake, and that isn't going to happen unless they decide to do the right thing.
That's so sad. I'm guessing a property line survey would have been prudent and a property line agreement with the neighbor. Thanks Steve!
Property owners are responsible for knowing and informing others about their property lines. The logger wouldn’t be expected to know property lines but the land owner or forester should have known the property lines and limits.
This is a real problem from the start to the end. I feel terrible.
Cases like this is why I had a cattle fence installed around my entire property. If some moron cut all the my fully grown oaks on my property I would end up in jail.
I know the feeling. Need to expand my fence to actually cover all my land before some moron comes and clears out the forest.
Who contacted the Loggers? The homeowners or the Timber Company? If the timber company hired (subcontracted) the logging company, then the timber company can get their lost money from the logging company. If the homeowner hired the logging company, then they messed up.
Great, now I want a shirt that says "you can always sue the tortfeasor".
This happens a lot in boondock in windy areas. The trees next to the road (the "Wind-row") are protection from high winds, valuable to the property owner across the road as well as the owner whose field is adjacent. Often property is bought and sold, with the disposition of the wind-row negotiated separately from the disposition of the land. That twenty-yard (or thirty-yard) strip next to the road is often owned by the property owner whose field the trees protect on the other side of the road.
Who hired the loggers? 😨
Timber falling ain't free. Someone said cut THAT tree .😮
Doesn't matter. You aren't responsible for the torts of an independent contractor.
Yep, I kept waiting for the answer to that $64,000 question.
In my experience, There are several parties involved. There is a survey company, that marks the property (assuming they did that). There is a company/person that cuts the trees. There is a company that sells the trees. There is a party that fixes the logging damage. The logger generally has very little money. You would be a fool to sue the logger, because if you won, he has no employer, he has a chain saw, a tractor, and some other equipment, and nothing to take. He might not even own a truck, he might move the logs to where they are sold. And in NYS, I think you can also sue for triple damages, but you cannot sue the buyer of the logs.
If there is one thing i know from this channel is NEVER cut down someone elses tree. lol
Never violate TREE LAW.
@pvccannon1966
> If there is one thing i know from this channel is NEVER cut down someone elses tree. lol
And if you do, sell everything you have to your kids for $1, and then you become the one not worth suing because you have nothing.
We had a guy moving a house and he got to a spot in the road he hadn't planned well enough for and cut down this guy's tree to get past with the house he was moving and there was talk of $50,000 to replace the tree at the size it was. This was in Nebraska we have some Forest industry but not much.
Ben on top of the mic in front of the Sailing plate.
Thanks Steve
The one thing i am not clear on is who marked the trees to be cut , as that seems to be the person who needs to be sued as they made the mistake that lead to entire mess.
Dammit Steve, I'm afraid to walk out my front door, I'd feel better if I was a barrister./lawyer. Thanks for bringing up these cases that affect the people
Arkansas Professional Surveyor here. Nobody was wronged by the courts or law. This would have been avoided by hiring a surveyor. It is a conscious decision to not use the only profession who can say what is owned. When people end up in these situations it is 100% their own fault. Laws don't need to change, people loose everything over bad decisions all the time. In Arkansas a land survey is required for logging, but they just don't. I suppose in Arkansas that you could argue that the wood cutter was negligent as he would be expected to know that a survey is required. I still think that is weak. Owner rolled the dice and didn't get a surveyor to guide them through this process. Perhaps the survey would cost more than the trees. If you are near a line, you can't afford to sell trees.
LOVE the In-N-Out license plate frame you added!
My father and his brother ran a little sawmill from the late 1940s to the early 1980s. Their source of trees was entities putting in new housing developments or new road alignments which needed to have trees cleared away. Or the occasional homeowner who had a tree that was starting to lean in the direction of their roof.... My dad and uncle did it all. They cut down the trees (and in most cases, their "fee" for cutting down the trees was to keep the logs). They milled the lumber, stacked it in a big drying shed for a period of time, then sold it. I don't recall hearing anything about the possibility of accidentally cutting down the wrong trees. I do remember one time seeing yellow caution tape wrapped around several tree trunks and being told those were the trees to be cut down. I also recall customers calling my dad at home very early in the morning to place orders, because once they got to the sawmill, they often could not hear the phone ringing. And for most of their run, the answering machine had not yet been invented. They managed, sort of, but didn't make exactly a ton of money. One regular customer was a famous movie star who bought lumber to build fences and horse corrals. My dad really liked her; not because she was a movie star, but because she was friendly and would engage him in conversation. I doubt he ever saw one of her movies.
Interestingly, in the UK we have a system called a ' Tree Preservation Order, TPO ' Any tree with an order granted cannot be cut down, and if it is then it is deemed a criminal act. Anyone can apply for a ' TPO ' even for a tree that is not on their property, ie, a neighbours property. Obviously there has to be good reason for an Order to be granted.
IT'S NOT OVER!!!!
The elderly couple now has a cause of action against their attorney for MALPRACTICE !!!
Do they? How do you know they didn't tell the lawyer not to sue the logger?
If the suit took 13 years and they were "elderly" to start with, how old are they now?
They are both dead. The wife died before the settlement, the husband died in 2021.
@steveniemyer9288 steve failed to see it was a 2016 story. Only 4 years to resolve. Dr. Was 87 when it was resolved.
The way logs that are worth $6,000 can cause damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars is because of replacement value. A single large tree worth $1,000 for lumber could only be replanted with an equal sized living tree for many times that amount.
Sue the attorney for bad advice
On different tree prices. One price is what the tree is worth for lumber. The other is the replacement cost of the tree which is MUCH higher.
It's pretty easy for $1,600 of lumber to be worth $100,000+ in damages. One value is the lumber value. The other is the replacement value of the trees. If someone cut down 19 trees on my property, I'm suing not for the lumber value but the replacement value. And replacing fully grown, large trees is COSTLY.
That couples legal woes were all self inflicted.
From what's understandable, the wood-purchaser is the sawyer. They saw the plot survey, marked the trees. They contracted with a tree-cutting company and communicated that they've marked the trees that should be logged.
This logging company cut all the trees that they saw marked. They delivered the logs to the sawyer.
The blame/ liability lies partially on the homeowner, but mostly with the sawyer THAT ACTUALLY MARKED the wrong trees.
It is hardly realistic to expect lawyers and judges to do anything to reduce the cost of litigation when they make money doing it and they're all scratching each other's backs.
Speedy trial What a joke.
The speedy trial thing only applies to criminal actions. But anyway, you don't know why it took so long, so you can't say who was at fault for the delay. It could well have been the couple pursuing the case.
Well, it only took six years to get to trial....from the incident in 2009. We don't know, without going to the actual court records, when the lawsuit was first filed. So, the trial may have been relatively speedy.
The appeals process however.....🤔
1. Good lecture on how to practice law.
2. The outcome of the lawsuit you addressed was just as it should have been. How could anyone justify the lumber buying company? I assume there was a prevailing party attorney's fee clause and that this is why the couple was liable for so much. I can hardly wait to hear about the legal malpractice claim that ensues.
I had that bar scene play out 20 years ago after a buddy's wedding. We were with some of the bridesmaids and a couple bouncers kept trying to dance with them and they weren't having it. The bouncers decided this was somehow our doing so we when went to leave one guy blocked the door and told me I wasn't going anywhere. A second bouncer sucker punched me in the temple and they proceeded to waylay every guy in our group. I was thrown down a flight of stairs and came to at the bottom of the stairwell. An off duty cop working security said he didn't see a thing. I filed a police report but because the cop and the bouncer said essentially I provoked the confrontation and the bar deleted their security video I had nothing to go on.
You may not have had a criminal complaint. However, you likely had grounds for a civil judgement. The bar deleting the video would have been thought mighty suspicious by a jury, and could have given you an award.
Yeah, sure.
Definitely should have sued them civil court, the fact their security video was deleted is very telling.
You stated early on the seller went with the buyer to Mark the trees to be harvested. That's where the error and faults lie.
The cutters just cut what was marked. Yeah, the seller should know tgeur property lines and should check with the neighbor for any close to the border
Who hired the logger? Only if the timber company hired the logger could they be held liable.
Another point of contest... the property lines in North Idaho have changed! When North Idaho was originally surveyed, the surveyor was off by 20 feet to the north and a similar number to the west. The map projections were updated in the 1980s - but the deeds were not adjusted. This is likely why the offending neighbor was on the wrong side of the property line.
The process is the punishment.
Dan Bongino’s great line
I remember this. Doesn’t pay to not pay attention.
A guy cut down trees for his wife's health bills. That sounds so American.
And what makes it worse is: Chemotherapy is classified as a carcinogen... and chemo does not cure cancer!
Yeah this is the actual story.
Yep, isn't America so exceptional?
Should a kept trees to hide his meth lab😮
Nothing wrong with paying your own bills. Why would a person be entitled to other people's money? Or, simply by insurance.
A forester can’t survey a property line in any state. That’s a major issue you see with timber companies. They have their forester mark the lines when cruising timber & they don’t actually measure or even know how to survey. They used to go by any old fence or evidence on the ground, now they use an app. They never get it right and sometimes they aren’t even close. It creates a lot of law suits.
the claim that 19 full size trees were only worth a few thousand is total bullshit. a full size tree replacement value is at least 25,000 each.
everyone this couple hired were totally incompetent. the lawyer, the logger and the surveyor.
I can not believe how many people on this thread seem to think that this was like someone came along someones estate manor drive and removed a row of stately oaks that would be worth a fortune at a sawmill. These are 19 average pine/ firs going to building lumber or pulp at the paper mill in North Idaho. North Idaho is basically covered everywhere with these trees unless the land is actively cleared or farmed. Depending on what they were and the size 19 trees could be worth $200 or $10,000. The price mentioned seems very average for the area. Under no circumstances in North Idaho is a judge going to tell someone they have to have a tree company come in and "replace" 100 foot trees on some remote property. I do not know what cushy suburb setting people are imagining but these are not decorative hardwoods.
@@mikecrooks8085 so you think its okay to cut down your neighbors 100 tall trees, pay them the value the wood would be, give them a 6 inch replacement and tell them that in 50 years they wouldnt be able to tell the difference? really?
@@scottmcshannon6821 yep. You're not entitled to a quarter million dollars over a dozen or so trees. It's wood, for heaven's sake. Your view and your shade has no monetary value.
@@theKashConnoisseurI'm guessing you missed those 3 years of law school and another 10-30 of legal practise
But go ahead, tell us more
Demonstrably false. The view and the shade directly affect property value, that is why tree law is so complicated and exists in the first place. If it were just the trees monetary value, it'd be treated as a simple property dispute, instead of being a whole damn thing.
My cousin had the same thing happen to him. The man who owns the land next to his, sold his timber. They cleared it. But then they knocked down my cousin’s barbed wire fence, and kept on cutting. Over three acres.
Why would a company buying lumber from someone have to go and mark the property lines? Can you imagine if the lumber was cut down in say Thailand? Would the company have to go across the ocean to mark the property lines? Sounds like the logging company was either a friend/ family they did not want to sue or they knew the loggers didn't have the money and it wouldn't be worth suing.
I mean, yeah, whoever was cutting the trees and going to the location would. Why would a random American lumber team go mark trees in Thailand? Do you need to take your mediation?
When a judge says that the legal system failed the elderly couple, is he really suggesting that their lawyer failed them? Is he hinting that the elderly couple should sue their lawyer?
Their lawyers committed malpractice by failing to advise them to sue the logging company
Maybe, unless The couple straight told the lawyer to sue the buyer, or didn't disclose to the lawyer that the buyer and logger weren't the same person.
In Virginia the property taking law was re-written a few decades ago to provide monetary damages to revenue generating property...example being a lot was taken by imminent domain , but the owner had rose bushes on it he would sell flowers and clippings off of.
Ben is perched on top of mic#7 behind Steve. #7 from our left.
Where is Dover?
Right in front of the Sailing Plate....
Here in southern West Virginia. Logging someone else’s land is a HUGE deal. Just cutting a big red oak can cost you 10X the value per square inch. If the judge so orders it.
Game wardens and conservation officers don’t play with these people that log. They will cite you for equipment violations. Such as harnesses and not having fencing around the logging area.
19 trees. Depending on size and type of tree. Could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Have seen this very thing happen right where I live.
Ben is on top of the D104 mic.
Yep I've been through this.
Logging "companies" only exist as long as a single job and somehow never have any assets, because they rent all their equipment from their owners, and coincidentally the exact price of that rental is the exact amount of the logging contract. Thus there's nothing to sue. If you're not in a state that allows civil piercing of the corporate veil, then there's nothing you can do.
The legal system failed, and the health care system failed.
As a Realtor Real Estate Broker for almost 35 years I have seen a property line problem now and then. Had one where one party hired a surveyor to clarify a line (there was an old fence that some felt was the line). The other party also hired a surveyor (a different one). The two results put the lines on either side of the fence by about 10 feet each. It went to court and the judge split the difference and left the line with the old fence line. In my general area of practice there is a widely known discrepancy of around 20 feet to as much as 200 feet which was caused by the original government survey. So when questions come up they must be handled by surveyors and usually establish certain lines going forward. Not everyone is always happy but at least the problem is addressed. The Tree-Cutting Dispute in today's video seems to showcase a lack of forethought and sophistication on the part of the older couple wanting to cash in on a few trees. Once in a while a situation just gets started wrong and goes downhill from there.
Ben on top of the D 104 Microphone
If those CEOs weren’t making $50 million dollar bonuses this would not be an issue💯
I am very confused by this case. If the timber company couldn't be sued because they did not cut the tree down, why should the couple be sued? They did not cut the tree down either, the logging company did.
The couple was ultimately responsible for what trees got cut down, because they're the ones who hired everybody to cut the trees
@@zacharyhenderson2902did they? They don’t actually say that in the story, it actually sounds like the purchaser arranged the survey and the logging. But in their contract they were just buying the lumber so the others probably agreed to get paid as the trees were sold.
I used to have a tree service and in the early days I hooked up with a builder and all went well and I took too much for granted and I trusted him and his word and I ended up cutting down a well over 100 year old Ponderosa pine. The homeowner and the builder both said it was on the property. I should’ve done my due diligence and checked all corners instead I cut the tree down and spent a year and a half in litigation. Luckily I had insurance the homeowner and the builder were fined $1 million. I was fine $10,000 and I learned a big lesson right then. Don’t trust anybody trust yourself do your job. Good luck.