Timber Theft In Pa

[Klaar]

This may be the wrong forum; too bad.

3 years ago a logging company took timber off the 50 acre tract adjacent to my 10-acre piece. To make a long story short, they cut down 63 of my trees "by mistake". I was referred to a local law firm with experience in this area. I sued for double or treble damages for the value of the sawlogs plus cleanup costs.

Eventually I learned that I should have sued for the replacement cost of the trees (or the largest replacements possible).

My question is this: Does anyone know of a lawyer or law firm licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, who may have the experience and hunger to handle this case? I wish to sue for damages for loss of shade and enjoyment of the land, inluding the death of remaining trees and the choking out of the understory by multiflora rose and other garbage plants. I need someone who is willing to break new legal ground; someone who is hungry and also will work for a percentage of the eventual reward.

Please help.

 

[ktm rider]

You could call your states Attorney General and his/her office can tell you what you want to know. They can not give legal advise but they can refer you to competent law firms that have handled this particular type of case in the past.

 

[lxt]

Klaar, there are time constraints as to how long after you can file suit, so make sure to file before time runs out.

as far as replacement value???? im not to sure that would get you the most $$$, I am assuming these are trees in a wooded area & not trees around your house or in a maintained area...this may impact the monetary value considerably!!

I would think neglect, destruction of private property, criminal mischief, etc.., also what is the $$ amount in damages equal too? could change classification (misdemeanor to felony).

sad thing is most Atty. will want up front cash, did you have your property surveyed, was property markers visible, was every tree a healthy tree, did you alert them where your boundaries were, truth is your neighbor may be more to blame than the loggers......burden of proof will be on you to show intentional & purposeful neglect........could it have been just a mistake, accident, boundary mixup, etc..... intent means alot!! & is hard to prove!



LXT..................

 

[Bushman_269]

What was the result of your original lawsuit? Has it been resolved, settled or tried in Court? If so, you may be out of luck for having elected your remedy. You generally cannot sue for the same wrong twice. I don't know what the statute of limitation period is in PA for such suits but you may be pushing on the time limit to commence a lawsuit before you are time barred from doing so. Contact an PA attorney who specializes in such actions right away to find out what rights you have. You can call your local bar association for recommendations on members who handle those kind of cases. Do it soon and best of luck with it.

 

[lxt]

whoops...after re-reading your post, you said 3 yrs ago!!

statute of limitations within the commonwealth of PA usually only give you upto 2yrs to file suit!! you are probably SOL......sorry


LXT...........

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

This is the site for consulting arborists and you can search for ones that expert witness.

http://www.asca-consultants.org/

They should know effective lawyers in your area, and be able to tell you if you still have a right to remedy.

As stated above, if you've already been to court, you may have to live with what you've got. It is worth talking to someone.

If you could have gotten more on amenity valuation, maybe you can sue your legal counsel for malpractice

 

[Husky137]

did you have your property surveyed, was property markers visible, was every tree a healthy tree, did you alert them where your boundaries were, truth is your neighbor may be more to blame than the loggers......burden of proof will be on you to show intentional & purposeful neglect........could it have been just a mistake, accident, boundary mixup, etc..... intent means alot!! & is hard to prove!

I think he is probably SOL as well. He had his day in court and sounds like he was compensated for timber theft. I doubt they will let you go back to the trough for another meal. Replacement cost is going to be an impossible sell for forest trees anyhow.

As for the burden of proof in timber trespass, it is the responsibilty of the logger or the landowner of the property being cut, not the neighbor. Timber trespass laws and harvesting laws are pretty clear on the subject here in Mass. I doubt they differ much in PA.

 

[Klaar]

Great replies, all. Thank you!

Currently we are waiting for a bit of information from the defendants, then with luck within a few months we'll ask to have the case listed for arbitration, which I believe is the usual course for complaints under $50,000. So no, I have not had my day in court.

I thought the statute of limitations here was 7 or 5 years.

I collected $11K from the fool who was mainly responsible for the cutting, $3K from an unconnected company who bought some of the timber lying on the ground, and just last month $10K from my homeowner's insurance company (the replacement cost I submitted was $75K but the maximum payout was 5%of the limit of liability on the structure.) The lawsuit I filed asks for about $27K more from the defendants - this includes damage to my driveway from logging trucks.

The defendants have already admitted in deposition to the act, but they say it was accidental due to a communication failure between them. The main defendant is a scumbag; a liar very good at killing woods and getting timber to the mill, but quite unintelligent where it matters.

The trees were technically in a wooded area, but one with wide, grassy walking paths. I had just bought the place and had planned treehouses, evergreen plantings, haunted hikes, campsites, hayrides and general enjoyment that a landowner could expect. These activities have been scrapped. LXT, you can see why I need an attorney with balls who is not afraid to push.

This was not an isolated forest, but one next to and around my home. It is my XXX landscape and I don't need anyone telling me it is merely a forested area valued only for the market price of the sawlogs!

 

[Husky137]

Good luck trying to convince a court that 63 trees on a forested parcel were landscape trees. 24K is a quite a substantial pay-out for such a small number of trees, especially with such a depressed log market right now, even at triple damages.

You don't need an attorney with balls, just one without ethics.

Indeed, you should have sought out the repairs on your driveway in the initial suit, but why were logging trucks using your driveway?

 

[custom8726]

Good luck trying to convince a court that 63 trees on a forested parcel were landscape trees. 24K is a quite a substantial pay-out for such a small number of trees, especially with such a depressed log market right now, even at triple damages.

You don't need an attorney with balls, just one without ethics.

Indeed, you should have sought out the repairs on your driveway in the initial suit, but why were logging trucks using your driveway?

X2!!

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

I thought the statute of limitations here was 7 or 5 years.

Limitations that long are usually for criminal acts. Civil actions usually have a much shorter limit.

 

[Metals406]

You can get nailed for $700 a tree here... Happened to my bro-in-law... 63 trees would make $44,100.00!!

Yikes!:jawdrop:

 

[Husky137]

You can get nailed for $700 a tree here... Happened to my bro-in-law... 63 trees would make $44,100.00!!

Yikes!:jawdrop:

Is that a fine or compensation? Most timber theft laws also have the ability for the governing body to fine the wrong-doers quite substantially.

 

[Klaar]

I think Pennsylvaia is a tree thief's paradise. There is little or no case law one might use to effectively burn the thief down in court. That's why I want to find someone who wants to blaze a new trail.

As far as convincing a court that the 63 trees were "landscape trees": do any of you actually know how PA law defines landscape trees versus forest trees? If I had that knowledge it may help me along here.

I granted access over my 1200 foot gravel driveway in return for certain improvements. The improvements were never made; the cost of said improvements were included in my complaint.

Husquy137, what do you mean one without ethics? Are you mad? the defendant in this case is working all over the state, I hear. His crews rape the land. Trees are yanked out without an iota of concern for the forest's future. They remove every last marketable tree. What's left are skinny, weak, bent, submissive, pathetic, and dead trees. Bark injury is rampant. The forest is flooded with hot sunlight. The surviving trees are baked and wind-whipped. Caterpillars and borers move in opportunistically and finish them off. Then there's more dead trees. There's no seeding of skid trails. It looks like a XXX bomb went off, or maybe like a fire swept through. This guy has pulled this type of #### many times before. I've been in contact with Sam Rohrer's office and the attorney general. They know of this guy. Many of his victims are gutless and don't want to get involved. So it takes a lawyer WITHOUT ETHICS to help take the thieving forest-killers down and maybe save a lot of heartache and deforestation in the state? That's a new angle to me.

If the statute of limitations is two years, I may be screwed. Only an attorney could tell me for sure, right?

 

[Climbing Cutter]

It sounds like you already got paid pretty good.

 

[Metals406]

Is that a fine or compensation? Most timber theft laws also have the ability for the governing body to fine the wrong-doers quite substantially.

Compensation for the value of each tree... No fine included.

 

[Dalmatian90]

I granted access over my 1200 foot gravel driveway in return for certain improvements.

So you knew about the logging in advance?

Did you at least learn to walk your property lines with the neighbors before such projects in the future?

I think you'll be hard pressed to get more money then the actual value of the trees -- and actual value is what they were, timber. You may have had plans for treehouses and everything else, but unless they were in actual use for those purposes such value is merely hypothetical. It would be akin to you suing someone for the value of house since they stole the lumber you planned to build it with.

 

[(WLL)]

all im hearing is you just want to sue fer money. or the bit of free money u already got has turned you greedy and you will sue anyone over anything. i am surprised too hear so many on your side. you talk a good story about stopping these people from destroying the earth, but i aint buying any of that! good luck

 

[chevytaHOE5674]

In this state you can sue for double or triple stumpage depending on the conditions surrounding the trees. Triple shows intentional theft and double is unintentional. You won't get anything more just because you had "plans" for the trees.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I understand that in MI you can seize their equipment in trespass with damage.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, if you say it is timber value only, then you don't have a clue yourself.

Say someone came in and tore your garage down, by accident. They said it was old, they should not have to pay replacement value, but the value of the structure as it stood. You would not agree, would you?

There is consideration for amenity value in the law too. As Klaar states we just need more precedence in case law. if a merchantable tree is 30-50 years old then Klarr may never see the property returned to the state in which he purchased it.

I think he needs to contact a good RCA, who can put him in touch with attorneys who are interested in changing property law. I'll bet the offending company has a history of crossing boundaries.

Oops, sorry, it was just an accident!

I think a Cost of Cure with long term maintenance is the way to go.