Thanks all, it seems there's a good consensus here on not paying, with a couple people saying to pay. Some random responses:
Pay Half: Although it's odd for the neighbor to both claim the trees are theirs and ask us to pay half, I think under normal circumstances this would be fine. I wouldn't have a problem paying half for work I agreed to on the trees, even if they weren't mine, since I was also benefiting from the work. The neighbor, in their hinting, also said that the previous owner of my house had cut down a tree on their side that was a hazard and they paid half without consultation. I don't think that makes what they did right at all, just that I normally would have been fine sharing maintenance costs for that kind of thing
assuming we mutually agreed to the price and character of the work beforehand.
The reason I want to keep a good relationship, and others have hinted, is that our relationship has so far been fine. To be honest, we don't really like the neighbors that much, but everyone is polite. The biggest transgression so far is he likes to park his truck on the shared driveway, partially blocking "his side," but he makes an effort to pull it really far over. It's mostly an eyesore, not an impediment to access. On the other hand, I sometimes use their driveway to bring the lawnmower up to the lawn (otherwise I'd have to carry it up the stairs). If one of us is out of town, the other will bring in mail and trash cans, etc. I'd much prefer a relationship where we look out for each other even if we aren't "friends"
Survey: Although I haven't gotten a quote, I'm guessing a survey will cost $1-2k or more because it's an odd-shaped property. I suppose I could just get the one property line done, but it might not be cheaper as that one is a curve. There is a chance some of the tree is on their side, but that doesn't allow them to cut the tops off, only to trim the side on their property, and not if it will kill the tree. There's also a chance one of the tree's trunk is on their side.... it really depends on the curve. I agree it might be a good idea to pay for the survey and consider that my "half" of the tree cutting. It might still be hard for the surveyor to establish good boundaries underneath the trees.
Apparently the tree service guy "told them" the trees were on their property because they were on the other side of my lawn edging. Totally ridiculous. I was like... how the hell would a tree guy know where the property line is.
So does everyone still think I should pony up the dough for an expensive survey? I'm not sure it would change anything at this point, unless the neighbor decides to chop them down. Trees will not need to be re-topped for maybe 10 years?
Fence: I technically can't put a fence on my property because there is a drainage easement that runs along a 10ft strip next to the property line. The builders did plant a lot of trees there, which theoretically could be taken out by the county if they ever needed to dig in that strip. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the fence can go right at the property line or has to be on their side.
Did the trees really grow in a way that they were nice, full, and symmetrical for the first 15 feet or so and then devolve into that oddly skinny charlie brown tree for the next 10 feet?
That's what I want to know.
No, they looked like normal cypresses before... it looks like the contractor sheared the branches off the trunk towards the top before taking the top down. The trees looked OK to begin with -- on par with other cypresses in the neighborhood. There were just a few branches licking out where birds had made nests that could easily have been cut off or tied back with a cherry picker.
boundary fences in some cities are shared between the two owners so the costs are split... even if you don't like it
and if they are "yours", he could take you to court for the full cost if they were higher than height restrictions if there are any. Plus if the tree fell and damaged his property because they were tall enough to reach it, you would be out more money
i thought he cut them in half vertically from your title :( I was expecting pictures of a lopsided tree lol
There are no height restrictions on trees
He didnt pull them out or have them removed, he did a job( taking care of them) you should have been doing. Give him his bottle of wine back and say sorry, you should have trimmed them so they were not an eyesore. The asshole will probably be dead in 20 years, just let him enjoy the time he has.
Can't tell if serious. "taking care of" trees does not entail cutting them in half. Most arborists would not approve topping a tree at all, but these had
allegedly been topped before. If true (something I would have checked before proceeding), then the trees are weak at the prior topping point and can break if allowed to grow too high. I would have be fine re-topping them in this case, but either way, they went way below any prior topping point in this work.
Here is my question for the OP (and it is not a legal question, just a follow up on the meaning of "accident"). Let's suppose that the neighbour had a both subjectively and objectively reasonable good-faith belief that he had the legal right to chop your trees in half. This is not relevant to the tort of trespass, but it might be relevant to the linguistic question of whether it was an "accident". Under these facts, the neighbour had a specific intent to send contractors onto the land, but not a specific intent to trespass (because he believed it was his land). In this scenario, was the unlawful trespassing an "accident" or not?
Chopping the trees was no an accident. Chopping
my trees could be considered an accident if they thought the trees were theirs. On objectively reasonable good faith, however, we have both previously claimed ownership of the trees (in passing). Therefore a reasonable person would understand that there was a dispute as to the ownership of the trees.