# Couple sue over damage to trees



## NetreeLady (Sep 15, 2004)

Article taken from the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune

METHUEN -- A North Street couple are suing the city and a private contractor for as much as $100,000 for injuring 17 spruce trees in front of their house.

James S. and Claire A. Greene planted the trees 38 years ago as 2-foot saplings. The pines grew to about 40 feet and served as a buffer that provided privacy and muted traffic noise. 

But three years ago, a private contractor hired by the city to replace a water main piled sand, rocks and other materials around the base of the trees. Some dirt piles were 5 feet high and sat there for three months, which the Greenes said killed the trees.

Today, the sickly looking spruce trees have dead branches and are missing their needles from the ground to about 10 feet high. Rocks and black tar chunks are still scattered around the base of the trees.

"It's not a pleasant thing to go to court to hold your town government responsible," said James Greene, an administrator for a nonprofit agency. "But we had no other choice." 

The lawsuit was filed in Essex Superior Court by Cambridge lawyer Bruce T. Macdonald. He said although state law prevents him from seeking a certain amount in damages, the total could exceed $100,000. 

"Those trees have been there for a long time and they were some beautiful cover," Macdonald said. "Frankly, I think it's reduced the value of the house."

Maurice J. Lariviere, the city's lawyer, said he is still reviewing the case and has not decided how he will move forward. The city did send an arborist out to inspect the trees when the incident occurred, but no remedy was ever offered, the Greenes said.

"The policy in the past is it is the responsibility of the contractor if they cause the damage," Lariviere said. 

The private contractor, Dami and Sons of Wilmington, could not be reached for comment. 

The Greenes want the spruces replaced with a new mix of bushes and trees, which could cost upward of $10,000. But, the 38-year-old trees can never be replaced, they said. 

"We're looking to replace what was there prior to what we think was the damage cost to us," James Greene said.

Landscaping is Claire Greene's hobby and she hates to see the dying trees. The rest of the property is immaculately pruned and decorated with exotic plants, bushes and a goldfish pond.

"I am heartbroken," she said. "I could cry every time I go down there."

THE LAW

Massachusetts General Law Chapter 242: Willful trespass to trees; damages

"A person who without a license willfully cuts down, carries away, girdles or other wise destroys trees, timber, wood or underwood on the land of another shall be liable to the owner in tort for three times the amount of the damages assessed therefore ..."


----------



## wct4life (Sep 15, 2004)

Just curious if you know if the trees were within the city easement? If they were, then I don't think the homeowners would have a case.


----------



## NetreeLady (Sep 15, 2004)

Don't know. The article didn't say and although I'm familiar with the area I'm not familiar with the property. I'd think that if the city was within its bounds it wouldn't have gotten to this point.


----------



## NetreeLady (Sep 15, 2004)

Well, I'll keep up with the story and see where it goes! My brother lives in Methuen so I'm sure I can get all the "dirt" needed!


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Sep 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by NetreeLady _
> [/B] a private contractor hired by the city to replace a water main piled sand, rocks and other materials around the base of the trees. Some dirt piles were 5 feet high and sat there for three months, which the Greenes said killed the trees.
> 
> & What about root cutting and flooding? Were they also factors?
> ...


Not uncommon; in NC damages are doubled for trespass.


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Sep 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel _
> * If the trees are in the easement, tough(expletive deleted). If the trees are beyond the easement and on private property, then the contractor is guilty of trespass and damaging the trees. *


It may not be that easy; trees often cross property lines and force both owners to be nice. If the trunks are on private property but roots and branches are in easement, then contractor may be obligated to avoid damaging private property (trees). Access to easement is not absolute, and cannot enable contractor to be reckless or negligent.


----------



## NeTree (Sep 15, 2004)

Speakling of pipes, we should take some pictures of the carnage going on downtown while they extend the water/sewer service.

Guy... saw this photo, and I couldn't help but think of you...


----------



## MasterBlaster (Sep 15, 2004)

I've been chased outta a tree by a redneck with a shotgun, before.

We came back later, and did the deed, with the law.

Thinking back, I shoulda sued that inbred...:alien: 

Easements can be a beeotch...


----------



## OutOnaLimb (Sep 15, 2004)

LOL, Good one, I have a T Shirt that says, "Save a tree, wipe your a$$ with a spotted owl.

Kenn


----------



## NeTree (Sep 15, 2004)

Well, the tree-huggers pizz and moan about the loggers, but there's wood in their homes somewhere, and I'm pretty sure you can bet they're not wiping with Glad...


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Sep 16, 2004)

Are all 17 trees dying? More questions than answers here. One thing's clear tho; destruction of city trees that are private property have nothing to do with harvesting rural trees for fiber.

The first is a crime, the second is a legitimate business. Derailing the thread with tp and owl "jokes" does disrespect to the original poster, but erik can handle that fallout, right?


----------



## NeTree (Sep 16, 2004)

Of course!

Besides... I know how to DRIVE...


(That'll get her going...)


----------



## NetreeLady (Sep 16, 2004)

HAH!! THAT issue is still up for debate. YES I BROKE A TAIL LIGHT GOING FORWARD!! I'm never gonna hear the end of this one. OK, so here's the story. He bought his (almost) brand new truck on a Thursday. Friday I drove it all the way home from the dealership (over 100 miles, on the Mass Turnpike, in the dark, arrived home about midnight) and parked it. Just fine, no problems. HE parked the other pickup, the chipper, the bucket truck etc. all kindsa packed into the yard. Saturday I went to go to the store and had to maneuver around all the above named vehicles AND try not to hit the house and just managed to bump the ring on the chipper with the right rear taillight on the truck and cracked it. So this is why "I can't drive".


----------



## a_lopa (Sep 16, 2004)

damm women drivers LOL,but hey you got the truck back in one peice we have some ok logging stickers''fertilize the bush doze in a greenie''take that anyway you want ''the only real wilderness is between a greenies ears''or guys ears LOL.


----------



## a_lopa (Sep 16, 2004)

And hi Elizabeth,keep that tree menace under control LOL


----------



## rb_in_va (Sep 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Guy Meilleur _
> *One thing's clear tho; destruction of city trees that are private property have nothing to do with harvesting rural trees for fiber.
> *



City trees that are private property? What does that mean?


----------



## glens (Sep 16, 2004)

Trees that live in the city but have civilian masters.


----------



## rb_in_va (Sep 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by glens _
> *Trees that live in the city but have civilian masters. *



I see. Duh!


----------



## Nickrosis (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: Re: Couple sue over damage to trees*



> _Originally posted by Guy Meilleur _
> *state law prevents him from seeking a certain amount in damages, the total could exceed $100,000.
> 
> & What state law sets a limit?
> *


The law may require that when the lawsuit is entered that there isn't a starting damage sought...that that decision be left up to the judge/jury.

Wisconsin has some stiff tort laws, too. I think it's three times as well for willful. Two times for imprudent.


----------



## NebClimber (Sep 16, 2004)

Elizabeth:

Did you quoute the Mass statute correctly? My guess is it should read "any person who, without license" , as opposed to "any person who, without "a" license".

"License" in the legal sense, means "permission". 

I doubt if the statue has any application here because the act of destroying the tree must be done "willfully".

On another note, it might make a big difference if the trees were killed by the fill material placed on top of the roots or if the trees were killed by the roots being cut when the path for the water pipe was dug. The first death would be caused by trespass and negligence and the second cause of death might simply have been unavoidable.

I would bring this case as one of inverse condemnation. When the government takes private property for public use it must pay for it. This is the found in the "takings" clause of the Federal Constitution. Inversely, when the gov't destroys private property for public use but does not pay for it, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the owner to sue the government to pay for the property "taken".

Often this gets the owner around the sovereign immunity enjoyed by Federal and State governments. Sovereigns can only be sued in tort with their consent.  The Federal Government has opened itself up to limited suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act. All State's have adopted similar Tort Claims Acts permitting themselves to be sued in tort, but the grant is limited. Outside the Tort Claims Act, the sovereign is protected by the age old maxim - adopted from the English monarchy - that the king can do no wrong. 

Steven


----------



## NeTree (Sep 16, 2004)

Neb, she didn't quote the statute, the writer of the article did. It was a cut'n'paste from the Eagle-Tribune (online paper).


----------



## Dadatwins (Sep 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> * The city needs to write better contracts with it's sub contractors to protect it's and it's citizens trees. Maybe the city needs to sue the contractor if they are city trees.
> *



That would only solve part of the problem, I work for a city and know that the contracts are written to protect the city trees but the Inspector who is supposed to be checking on the progress at each stage of the job rarely shows up until the damage is done and usually does not know what they are inspecting anyway.
If the trees were in the city right of way the so-called arborist should have check the site to protect the trees as an advocate for the trees in the city. If they were on private property, sad for the homeowner and hope a large $$$ will help replant what was lost.


----------



## JJackson (Sep 16, 2004)

I have seen easement agreements that dont make detailed notes on trees, and these were from a power company.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Sep 17, 2004)

Cut out and taken Off Topic like I said I would. See ya there...


----------



## NeTree (Sep 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Tom Dunlap _
> *So...if tree huggers can't build houses from wood, does that mean anyone who voted for Shrub should be conscripted for duty in Iraq?
> 
> Bad logic...
> ...



Whoa... you did NOT go there...


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Sep 17, 2004)

Sheeeesh...

Lighten up a little  Loosen your hat , I know that you're able to carry on a courteous dialog.

I was making light of logic, AND I apologized for a possible hijacking. It seems like anyone else can stray from the topic at hand and it's OK. Why the vent?

Maybe it would be better to say that people who support abo...nope, not gonna go there either! 

I'm going to try and cut out my reply and take it OT. How about taking yours along too?

Tom


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Sep 17, 2004)

*Back on topic *

It will be interesting to see how this might play out in court. I bet a case can be made for the damages even if the trees were in an easement. Since professionals are held to a higher standard of duty it seems like people who contract the excavating might be expected to know that piling dirt on the trees would damage them.

If those same trees were smashed by a run away car I'll bet that an attorney would be able to collect damages. Even if someone planted them in the public median.

Tom


----------



## geofore (Sep 17, 2004)

*damage/trees*

www.prairielaw.com Real Estate messageboard, this topic comes up on occasion. I would have pulled surveyors report and notes/maps to see if this was an easement from wayback when before it got this far. With all the new housing plans going in around here the easements will play a part in tree removal. You would be surprised at how many new home buyers buy the lots without having a survey done, they take the sellers word for where the lines are. A big mistake not to have the survey done and monuments/pins placed. A lot of times the seller does not tell you where the easements are to make the lot look bigger to get a better price and years down the road when repairs or upgrades are done your landscape pays the price.


----------



## Noble Zone (Nov 5, 2004)

*Suing bad urban loggers*

I would be very interested in how this case turns out since I'm in a similar situation. Our power co. has a 40 foot easement on each side of the utility line. My property is 80 x 100. There are lines on two sides of my property. That means their easement is 3/4 of my property. My yard is only 15 feet, so their easement includes my livingroom, office, Bedroom, shop, and garage. 
The utility sent urban loggers out to butcher my trees. I've been in the house for 25 years and the trees are trimmed every 3 to 5 years (except my cedar, it doesn't threaten the lines). This time they topped the cedar and mutilated a maple. I'm suing. That is if I can find a lawyer who is willing to take on the almighty power co. 
We've been in negotiations. Their last offer was to replace my 60 - 100 year old trees with saplings and pay $500.00. Before that, they offered to plant saplings in a local park in our honor. Isn't that sweet! Idiots! Our local park is a National Forest.
They keep putting off and delaying. That's their plan. Ignore it long enough and it'll go away. I don't go away. I expect this case to take two years and I expect I'll win. An easement gives them the right to occupy, not destroy. Although they broke many rules published in our GA Dept. of Transportation Utility Accommodations Standards and Specifications Guide, I live on a county road and not a state road. Our county has no rules...no regulating authority... and very little sense of justice when it comes to trees.
I've never heard about the reverse condemnation thing, although I did suggest to the power company that they take over payments of my house since they have a right to everything except my kitchen, bathroom, and 10x10 back yard. I'll have to check into that. I've been checking state laws which say I can only sue for damages. That's the utility co. I can still sue the consulting firm that was hired by the utility and the tree service that was hired by the consulting firm. 
Here's the problem I'm having. Can't find a qualified lawyer. The only one I've found is Randall Stamen arborist/attorney in California. That's just about the other side of the world. Does anyone out there know a tree loving attorney in Georgia, Tennessee, or Alabama?


----------



## NeTree (Nov 5, 2004)

What's wrong with urban loggers?


I think the "$500 and replace the trees" was pretty reasonable, considering.


Frankly, you're starting to sound like the kind of bitter person who just lives to find something to sue over/b!tch about. maybe THAT'S why you can't find an attorney to take the case.


----------



## treeman45246 (Nov 5, 2004)

These 60-100 year old trees are the same ones you posted pics of over at treehelp a few months ago? The link is gone, but you were talking about a couple of silver maples and an Atlantic White Cedar, right? I'd take the $500 and the saplings. An easement gives the power company the right to prune, and even a bad hack-em-up job is within the confines of the law in many cases. Right tree, right place - end of story. This sue everyone and everything over a poorly placed tree is a waste of time and money - only the lawyer is making any money on this one.


----------



## Noble Zone (Nov 5, 2004)

*Such foul language*

Erik,

Why is it necessary to use such foul language and call people names to get your point across? I have never in my life sued anyone and I'm not a female dog.
Homeowners insurance pays $500.00 per tree for damage claims. It'll cost me $1250.00 to have the trees removed and $150.00 for stump grinding. 25 gallon replacement trees will cost around $600.00. And, misc. landscaping would be another $200.00. $500 is not a reasonable offer nor is 5 gallon saplings. 
I've talked to two kinds of lawyers; those that are too scared to take on the big dogs and those who want to sue for 1.5 million in punitive damages. Although 1.5 million would be nice, that's not what this is about and I'm not turning this into that type of case. It ain't McDonalds and I didn't get burned. (Although there is more to that case than the media told us. 750+ previous burn complaints on record before anyone sued. Someone had to stand up and say, "STOP IT! I'm proud of the woman who did.") I'm not bitter. It's not in my nature. I do, however, believe in the purpose of tort and it's my turn to stand up and say, "STOP IT!" Someone has to make a stand or urban loggers will continue to show disrespect for trees and their owners. 
Seems to me, you are the one who is bitter. Every reply to every post that has your name on it seems bitter. Did a tree fall on your dog when you were a child? What caused this deep rooted hatred you have for trees and reputable arborist?
What's wrong with urban loggers, you ask. Well, they use unnecessarily bad language and, apparently, they are prejudice against red necks and tree lovers. The type of classy people I'd call All-American and be proud to associate with!


----------



## jimmyq (Nov 5, 2004)

I dont think Erik called you a female dog, he said that " you're starting to sound like the kind of bitter person who just lives to find something to sue over/b!tch about. ". Were you aware of the easement when you inhabited the property in question? If so, then I don't see the real big problem, power companies have easements in order to manage the vegetation to their needs, to continue to provide power to homeowners like yourself. If you dont like it, live in a place without power, or a place without trees, if you choose not to, you have chosen to live in a place where the two must co-exist. It may be a shame that the trees you had were "butchered". Can you describe the butchering? Was it cosmetic or excessively harmful to the longevity of the trees in question? If the people that were hired to do the work were not qualified then you should pursue the power company to hire people that know what they are doing, like Erik. It is the goal of any reputable tradesperson to have a set of standards followed by their so called peers, there are rules and regulations to follow for us as arborists and for ROW clearance work, help us to enforce those rules and regulations and we all win, including the trees.


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Nov 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by netree _
> * So, the power company was well within their rights to do what they did. Even so, they offered to replace the trees and pay her five bills apiece. No wonder no attorney will take up the case; she simply has no basis whatsoever. *


Erik, you just flunked Reading Comprehension 101: No one ever said "apiece"; it was $500 TOTAL. Typical slimeball lowball from the utility.

I'm glad you linked that old thread; here's some of it:

"Erik, if you're pointing to teeny holes made by a little birdie and telling people "it was probably going to be dead long before it ever got near the lines"  then you are mongering fear, on the order of saying ants make trees unsafe.
That is pushing removals by exaggerating a very common little pest into Godzilla."


Mr. "Love"ll: "I just don't like people like YOU. You came here for our expert opinions, yet insisted we didn't know what we were talking about."

Erik, your opinion was wrong, but NobleZone did not disagree with you; I did. Your Ronald McDonald attacks on her make no sense; unless it's related in some way to the root pruning on the leaning elm in   

Difference there of course is that the damage was part of the work designed and ordered by the owner...

What would you do if a tree that you valued highly got butchered like that cedar? Removing all that plant material for no reason and topping-destroying that ornamental was an injury that can and should be compensated, whatever the easement story is.


----------



## geofore (Nov 6, 2004)

*The pictures*

Those do not look like High voltage lines calling for a forty foot right-of-way on either side of the poles. Those appear to be residential lines(12.5k or less). Right-of way 23' total or 12'6" either side of the poles or wires. If I were you I'd find out if the street didn't have a 100' right-of-way and the trees are on the streets ROW. If the trees are on the streets ROW you lose in court. Anytime a wire goes over/near your property, telephone lines included, if it has a ROW your trees get trimmed. Without a surveyor's report, you don't even consider sueing because you don't know what you do or do not own. If there is a sewer, water or gas line ROW to your house and those trees are on it you lose. The trees can be removed/trmmed at anytime for maintainence. The problem you have is you don't know where the ROWs are or how wide they are. My guess is the trees along the street are on the street's ROW and the phone line is close enough your cedar is on the ROW. A proper survey will cost you about 2-3k for the report, map and monument placement. Only then will you know for sure. As it stands now, the $500 and tree replacement sounds very reasonable. You hire the lawyer after the survey is done not before. So get out your wallet and hire that surveyor and find out, don't whine about it. It's not your fight if the trees are on someone elses ROW. I've had homeowners show me their gun collection over tree removal on ROWs. I refer the matter to the local police and offer the homeowner they can showoff their gun collection to the police when they come to explain where the ROWs are. Get the facts first, you may have no claim to the trees to sue in the first place, they may sit on a ROW!


----------



## Newfie (Nov 6, 2004)

If the case came even remotely close to having any merit you would have an attorney jumping all over it. The only attorney you can find wants to sue for millions because he knows it is the only way it will be worth his time to drag on a prolonged campaign to get the power company to cave in to your extrodinary demands.


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Nov 6, 2004)

If your opinions were based on experience they may be closer to truth. Similar easement cases have settled for 5 figures. on one the utility pruned/butchered in their easement, then offered $5k. If they had every right to control that easement, they wouldn't have offered anything, would they?

The case has dragged on for 2 years, the utility has tried every dirty trick in the book and failed. I'l post when it is tried or settled. The lack of useful lawyers for these cases is soleoly a function of their lack of tree knowledge.

Erik your wild  and contradictory statements do not even merit a reply, but they do merit a new poll.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 6, 2004)

Get the survey then talk to a consulting arborist who has expericance in ROW damage. Guy might know someone in your area, otherwise there is the ASCA website.

ROW easements give the right to control vegitation I did not have tie to look at the pics or anything but this thread.

I'm all for people trying to add to legal president.


----------



## Noble Zone (Nov 6, 2004)

*Easement*

The property is on a county road within a subdivision. Every house on the street has a 15' front yard. 4 houses have utility poles and lines. I own the corner lot in the middle of the subdivision. It is 20' smaller than the other lots in the subdivision. The county has a 32' ROW (16' from center) that extends 6.5' into my yard. The trees are at least 2 foot outside their ROW. The sewer and water are on the other side of the road and their ROW does not extend into my yard. My property was surveyed by the county 3 years ago when the sewer was installed and the road was rebuilt. All corners, except the back, were marked and the markers are still there. The back is bordered by fences so we pretty much know where that line is. The power lines are not extremely high voltage because they only power this subdivision's 9 houses.
The actual butcher said he cut the cedar because it was "close" to the phone line. He also doesn't know his lines. Cable was the closest line. The VPO of the power company said they do not perform vegetation management for the phone nor cable lines. This is evident by the trimming above those lines along the highway (because there are state laws) and city streets (also regulated). 
I signed the easement (if it exists) 25 years ago when I first requested power. It is one sentence in the contract that you MUST sign for service. I asked our recently oust Senator and our current County Commissioner (both of whom live in the area) if they were aware of the easement they had signed. They were not. If they are unaware that they signed such a thing, why would I be expected to know about it. I've asked almost every customer who comes in my store if they are aware of the easement. I've yet to find one person who knows that they were coerced into signing such a thing. 
The power company can not provide a legible copy of the contract they say I signed because it is on microfiche. They refuse to give me a blank copy of the contract for my file. They have shown me Gayle Morrison's contract. That is the only legible contract I've seen and they say it is the same contract EVERYONE signs to get power. I don't know Gayle Morrison and I believe showing me her contract would be against some privacy law. But, that's her problem.
If I had known about the easement, I probably would not have bought the property 25 years ago. There is no easement on file with the property office, tax accessor's office, or any state or county office; not for electricity, telephone, nor cable...there is, however, DOT ROW and Water/Sewer on file. The only thing saying there is a 40 foot easement is Gayle Morrison's contract. He address isn't near mine. It was dated years after mine. The power co's attorney says the easement is in the by-laws. The by-laws state "Each applicant or member shall, upon being requested so to do by the Cooperative, execute and deliver to the Cooperative grants of easement or right-of-way over, on and under such lands owned or leased by or mortgaged to the member, and in accordance with such reasonable terms and conditions, as the Cooperative shall require for the furnishing of electric service to him or other members or for the construction, operation, maintenance or relocation of the Cooperative's electric facilities." I can't quote what is on the contract I signed because they won't give me a copy!


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Nov 7, 2004)

A lawyer, who gets paid by the word, or maybe the letter.

What in particular do you find crappy? Sounds like boilerplate to me but then I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## geofore (Nov 7, 2004)

*Noble*

I will admit you are far better informed than most. I know from experience you must have all your ducks in a row before you attempt to go forward. "They won't give me a copy". I run into that often when trying to get public records where the holder of the records doesn't want to be bothered with the task of retrieving the record (lazy), covering their butt (seldom). The ROW issue is the entry of a third party to the fray, if it's on their (cable or phone) ROW are they okay with what was done before it becomes your turn to speak. Guy is right, the utilitys don't usually make an offer. Don't take anybody's word for it, get a copy of the document so you know for sure.


----------



## glens (Nov 7, 2004)

*Re: Who wrote that crap?*

It's poor English that's trying to sound like good legalese but if it's not good English it <i>can't</i> be good legalese.

(Reminds me of the time Charley Gibson on Good Morning America got Miss Janet Reno to repeat 3 more times the phrase "people who don't belong to have guns".&nbsp; He was my hero after that.&nbsp; The top lawyer in the land should have good command of the English language, don't ya think?&nbsp; She came across as sounding like a country bumpkin.)

In the supposed legalese blurb above, what <i>are</i> the "such reasonable terms and conditions"?&nbsp; The comma after the phrase separates it from anything.&nbsp; It might make more sense without the comma, but not by much.

And how the hell can anyone <i>leasing</i> property sign over ROW?&nbsp; Doesn't that fall to the lessor?

Glen


----------



## geofore (Nov 7, 2004)

*Coop*

Glens, you lease the last house on the block in a Coop and the Coop agrees to let the builder add 12 more homes past you. Now you lose your driveway and can't park your car in ther garage while the sewerline, road, gas and electric are added, you don't have a driveway any longer. The Coop/landlord expects you to pay the premium rent you pay for the garage and driveway you can't use while the sewer goes in. The Coop doesn't have to compansate you as per the agreement you signed (lease). You are expected to pay full price for something you can't use and you won't be compansated for it. On top of that you can't get out of the lease even if you can't flush the toilet while the sewer goes in. You see you signed this lease (lease bound by Coop bylaws) to allow the ROW to go through. It's not in your lease it's in the Coop by laws you never see and are never offered to you = YOU are screwed. Just because your place is now unihabitable you still must pay the rent because the Coop rules say you agree to allow for ROW Mister Leasee. NO Compansation. No way out of the lease. If you are a land owner they take the ROW with NO compansation to you!!! It's in the bylaws or it may just be in the miniutes of one of the meetings of the Board. You are screwed. You'd like to get out your chainsaw and fix it?


----------



## Noble Zone (Nov 8, 2004)

See what I'm up against? You should meet their lawyers. Tiny little office on a back street with no sign; just their name on the door. I expected perfectly creased suits and real leather furniture. You expect the big guys to have fancy lawyers. Far from it. It made me feel much more confident about using my usual attorney, if it comes down to it. He's not experienced in this type stuff and I'd rather have one who's been there...done that.  But, if I've got the experts lined up before he starts...he'll probably do fine.

I've been asking for a copy of the easement I supposedly signed since the day the trees were cut (8-11). That's when they started talking about 40'. They finally had their lawyer send what they claimed was a copy. It was not legable because it was a copy off microfiche. They sent me someone elses contract because, "The copy is not good and I have therefore enclosed another more legible copy." It was not legable, either. 
I went to their lawyer and requested they read it to me. They said they couldn't read it. I asked if they had a better copy. They said no. I asked if they had the original microfiche. They said no. I asked them why they would bother sending a document that would not hold up in court. They said the VPO of the power co. requested they send it. Having their lawyer send this useless paper was simply an intimidation tactic. It didn't work. 
As for them being too lazy to give me a copy. They won't even give me a blank copy that the girls in the front have at their desk to get signed by new applicants. I've been thinking about hanging out at the front door and quizing new applicants about whether they were given a copy of the contract they just signed.

By the way, Guy, thanks for the referral of a semi-local appraiser. We spoke a few times, he's willing to do the job and I'll be calling him to set up the appraisal next week. I hate that it took this long. I know appraisals are supposed to be done as soon as possible, but they put it off by saying they were going to do it and then not doing it and I'm not rich, so it took a little time to come up with enough money. My customers have been donating spare change to pay for the appraisal and we're close enough to do it. They actually tossed in over $300 in two weeks. I love my customers! They really want to see someone take down the North Georgia Electric Mafia Corp. Their name for it...not mine (although it fits). I'm not the only person who is upset about the way their trees were cut. I'm just the only one willing to put in the time to research and do it right. If it changed to a class action, they'd jump on it. Not gonna happen!


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Nov 8, 2004)

> _ thanks for the referral of a semi-local appraiser. We spoke a few times, he's willing to do the job and I'll be calling him to set up the appraisal next week. I hate that it took this long. I know appraisals are supposed to be done as soon as possible, but they put it off [/B]_


_which is SOP by the injuring party with tree legal actions; that weeds out the ADD and others weak of will, wit or wherewithal (gotta luv that alliteratin'!). It'll be a long wait, Erik--average time for settlement here: over 2 years. :jester:

You're welcome for the referral; he seemed like a straightup guy when I met him at the ASCA Academy in 96; well-grounded in the tree biz too. Don't ever, ever give up. And don't listen to those who call you a suer; we know that's untrue._


----------



## MasterBlaster (Nov 8, 2004)

*Foul!*

Low blow!


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by netree _
> *Must be all the inbreeding down there. *


But we haveto take it on the chin, MB.
Here's one for the Joke thread; I heard it from an ER doctor: 

"Why are NC trailer park crimes hard to solve?" 

"Because there are no teeth, and all the DNA's the same".

:alien:

But seriously, folks, it's the lawyer's game to drag things out. Keeps their meter spinning, but that must only be a coincidence; they are all honored professionals.


----------



## Noble Zone (Nov 8, 2004)

Erik is entitled to his opinion. Even if it's wrong.


----------

