This is why I keep saying typically, because typically this incurs liability when you kill/seriously injure your neighbor's tree. You can cut, and even demand that your neighbor cuts, but you can't butcher a tree 100% free and clear all the time, just because it's partially on your property.

quote:
but i'm telling you what the actual law is...

Then cite the law man, no need for the attitude. There's significant ambiguity in cc688 and I'd hate for OP to get in a lawsuit because they listened to dudes on the OT instead of the written law

This post was edited on 7/11/25 at 5:04 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by chRxis

None of your fricking business

Member since Feb 2008

27918 posts

Posted on 7/11/25 at 7:11 pm to Bigdawgb

quote:
you can't butcher a tree 100% free and clear all the time, just because it's partially on your property.

again, you can cut EVERY SINGLE branch, limb, root, etc that is on your side the property.... period.... if the tree dies as a result, that's on the owner of the tree not you... it's THEIR responsibility to upkeep the branches of the tree and prevent them from infringing on other people's property... 99% of the time, people don't have a problem with the branches, etc... but as far as the legality of cutting branches on YOUR property, you are free and clear to cut whatever happens to be on your side, regardless of the health of the tree after the cutting....

quote:
cite the law man

I did... you even responded to it...

quote:
significant ambiguity in cc688

no, there's really not...

again, if it's on YOUR side, you can do what you feel is necessary for you to enjoy YOUR property... you just can't go to THEIR side to remedy it...

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bigdawgb

Member since Oct 2023

4171 posts

Posted on 7/11/25 at 8:31 pm to chRxis

Scott vs. Ramos

There's significantly more nuance to it beyond cc688. This is a good read for you & anyone interested, from the LA Supreme Court

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by chRxis

None of your fricking business

Member since Feb 2008

27918 posts

Posted on 7/11/25 at 9:32 pm to Bigdawgb

quote:
This is a good read for you & anyone interested, from the LA Supreme Court

bruh... that ENTIRE entry proves my point...

the duty of keeping the limbs from encroaching upon an adjacent property is the responsibility of the owner of the property that the tree is on... but if it goes beyond that, into another's property, they can modify the tree's limbs and/or roots that are on THEIR property....

how you don't even understand your own "evidence", I don't know...