David Young and Debbie Young v. Kathy Ledford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
rel: 11/06/2009 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080473 David Young and Debbie Young v. Kathy Ledford Appeal from Randolph C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-77) PITTMAN, This Judge. appeal, transferred t o A l a . Code court Supreme Court involves t h ecompeting r i g h t s o f a d j o i n i n g t r e e whose t r u n k pursuant to this by t h e Alabama 1975, § 12-2-7(6), landowners as t o a i s l o c a t e d o n t h e i r common b o u n d a r y , a n i s s u e 2080473 of apparent our first review of judgment for of under Alabama Randolph Circuit Court who with her an a c t i o n i n t h e her according we t r i a l court to a recent owns a that r i g h t t o remove a p i n e survey, lies on the a l o t owned by D a v i d Young and cause i t to [ h o u s e ] as Youngs that fall on tree, which i s located "[a] strong the home a n d well as serious admitted the location the tree was "a true wind could injury of against the boundary to tree, line between slightly and threat the tree cause any that, Debbie Young. from L e d f o r d ' s house, "poses a danger that tree boundary 10 and lot in filed a l l e g e d that the house cause house i s l o c a t e d , Ledford that the a judgment d e c l a r i n g seeking husband have the L e d f o r d ' s l o t and feet upon reverse remand the husband Roger R a n d o l p h County upon w h i c h a v a c a t i o n and and Based 1 proceedings. Kathy Ledford, she law. a p p l i c a b l e American precedents, the further impression damage they t r e e " and to" could to occupants." but over the The averred contended We s u r m i s e f r o m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t to transfer the case that that court has determined, notwithstanding the c l e a r e x i s t e n c e i n t h i s case of a " n o v e l l e g a l q u e s t i o n , " t h a t the r e s o l u t i o n of t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l not h a v e " s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t e w i d e i m p a c t . " A l a . Code 1975, § 12-27(6)b. 1 2 2080473 that side i tcould of n o t " b e harmed o r c u t b y " l a n d o w n e r s on the boundary line. After proceeding, during which Ledford, a forester trial court husband retained entered could to minimize part, the t r i a l brief ore a l l gave testimony, a judgment d e c l a r i n g that Ledford the tree at their convenience, damage t o t h e Y o u n g s ' l o t . court tenus h e r husband, t h e Youngs, and by t h e Youngs remove steps a either andh e r taking In pertinent opined: " [ L e d f o r d ] and h e r husband wish t o c u t t h e t r e e b e c a u s e t h e y a r e a f r a i d t h a t t h e t r e e w i l l f a l l on t h e i r home. I f t h e t r e e f a l l s o n t h e i r home, s i n c e t h e t r e e i s l o c a t e d s o c l o s e t o i t , t h e home w o u l d l i k e l y be s e v e r e l y damaged. Further, and perhaps more i m p o r t a n t l y , i f [ L e d f o r d a n d h e r h u s b a n d ] were a s l e e p o r e v e n i n t h e i r home a n d t h e t r e e f e l l o n i t , [ t h e y ] o r a n y o n e l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e home c o u l d s u f f e r serious i n j u r y or death. " " U n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , a l a n d o w n e r may r e m o v e a n y roots or limbs that protrude onto h i s property w i t h o u t consequence, even i f t h e t r e e t h a t t h e r o o t s and l i m b s a r e a t t a c h e d t o a r e l o c a t e d on a n o t h e r ' s property. Further, a l a n d owner h a s a r i g h t t o remove a n y t r e e s o r o t h e r g r o w t h on h i s p r o p e r t y up to the property l i n e , and t h i s r i g h t extends t o the center o f t h e e a r t h and i n t o t h e sky. Thus, w i t h o u t recourse o r consequence, [ L e d f o r d ] could c u t i n t o the t r e e t o t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e and then c u t from t h a t p o i n t t o t h e center of t h e earth and i n t o t h e sky. B e c a u s e 19 i n c h e s of the tree's 28-inch diameter measurement i s l o c a t e d on [ L e d f o r d ' s ] s i d e o f t h e property line, [Ledford], therefore, could 3 the 2080473 c o m p l e t e l y remove more t h a n one h a l f to her property line. of the tree up "Since [Ledford] u n q u e s t i o n a b l y has t h e r i g h t t o remove a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e t r e e t h a t i s l o c a t e d on her s i d e of t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e and s i n c e doing so would l i k e l y k i l l the t r e e , the Court i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t [ s h e ] s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o c o m p l e t e l y remove t h e t r e e t o e n s u r e t h a t h e r p r o p e r t y a n d t h e h e a l t h a n d w e l l b e i n g o f a n y o n e l o c a t e d i n h e r home are protected." The Youngs timely appealed judgment. Their improperly applied the holding Cancer Treatment manner that appellate Center, allows brief 551 factual court by So. the u n i l a t e r a l with court's conclusions We that 2d 299 removal other states f o rher part, agree w i t h Regional in a of decision i s i n t h e same has n o t favored this the t r i a l o f de n o v o review. 675 S o . 2 d 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 ( A l a . controversy 4 court of a boundary-line t h e Youngs t h a t when e s s e n t i a l l y and t h e p a r t i e s ' court's the t r i a l decided of law are the subject that trial ( A l a .1989), the proper rule I n s . Co. v . S k e l t o n , (indicating presented from Ledford, a brief. See A l l s t a t e 1996) caselaw setting. posits the o f H a r d i n g v. Bethesda t r e e b y one l a n d o w n e r a n d t h a t supplied from undisputed involves facts are questions of 2080473 law f o r the court carries no p r e s u m p t i o n We s t a r t w i t h the to consider, right of the t r i a l court's correctness). t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t Alabama law o f a landowner judgment to cut vegetative recognizes protrusions, as b r a n c h e s o r r o o t s , e x t e n d i n g o n t o t h a t l a n d o w n e r ' s from a plant property. (1949), that i s located on I n Drummond v . F r a n c k , a complaint alleged, an adjacent several complainants among extending owned b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . parties, of In addressing that "[f]or other over" things, aught appears the trees of complainants were over-hanging one of the respondents remove them." of lot so long alley thus had i n Harding e x t e n d i n g from a t r e e a s no t r e s p a s s was 5 some "had a as a l l o w i n g citation from respondents' 252 A l a . a t 4 7 9 , 41 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 3 . Drummond was c o n s t r u e d t o remove r o o t s a particular that c u t from that the from t h e t r e e s Court observed, without the limbs and that the competing r i g h t s of the [complaint], limbs landowner's 252 A l a . a t 4 7 7 , 41 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 1 t h e A l a b a m a Supreme authority, property 252 A l a . 4 7 4 , 41 S o . 2 d 268 r e s p o n d e n t s h a d " c u t o r c a u s e d t o be c u t l i m b s of such of the property" right The a the to holding landowner l o c a t e d on an a d j o i n i n g committed: 2080473 "Given the right to remove tree limbs o v e r h a n g i n g h i s p r o p e r t y , an a n a l o g y c a n certainly b e made r e g a r d i n g a p r o p e r t y o w n e r ' s r i g h t t o r e m o v e roots extending onto his property. This is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n l i g h t of the landowner's r i g h t to e x c a v a t e on h i s own land. To d e n y s u c h a right w o u l d c r e a t e an o p p r e s s i v e r e s t r i c t i o n on t h e u s e o f o n e ' s own land. "The d o c t r i n e o f c u j u s e s t s o l u m e j u s e s t u s q u e a d c o e l u m e t a d i n f e r o s ('to w h o m s o e v e r t h e soil b e l o n g s , he owns a l s o t o t h e s k y a n d t o t h e d e p t h s ' ) may h a v e b e e n q u a l i f i e d i n s o f a r as a i r f l i g h t and oil and gas law i s c o n c e r n e d ; however, i t s t i l l e x t e n d s t o a i r s p a c e t h a t c a n be o c c u p i e d b y limbs o f t r e e s a n d , we h o l d t o d a y , t o t h e d e p t h s t h a t c a n be o c c u p i e d b y r o o t s o f t r e e s . " Harding, 551 So. 2d at 302 (citations omitted). H o w e v e r , n e i t h e r Drummond n o r H a r d i n g a n a l y z e d of contending "true boundary addressed the jurisdictions a tree is adjacent the line as t o what the tree." issue, there as t o t h e located on landowners, Although no Alabama i s near u n i f o r m i t y Trees, Line, 26 Rights boundary each and Shrubbery, A.L.R.3d case among line landowner between Liabilities or 1372 i s deemed t o See Plants (1969). An Growing of owned by part of own F.S. apt on statement has trunk Tinio, of A d j o i n i n g Landowners Similar 6 lots a American s t a t u s of such a t r e e : i f the a rights Youngs have c a l l e d t r e e , u s u a l l y u n d e r a t e n a n c y i n common. Annotation, to landowners the as Boundary of the 2080473 applicable legal principle T e n n . A p p . 9 3 , 2 2 9 S.W.2d appears 157 i n Cathcart v. Malone, 33 (1950): "'A t r e e s t a n d i n g o n t h e d i v i s i o n l i n e b e t w e e n adjoining p r o p r i e t o r s , so t h a t the line passes t h r o u g h t h e t r u n k o r body o f t h e t r e e above t h e s u r f a c e o f t h e s o i l , i s t h e common p r o p e r t y o f b o t h p r o p r i e t o r s a s t e n a n t s i n common. This i s another i n s t a n c e w h e r e t h e m a x i m , "he who owns l a n d owns t o t h e s k y a b o v e i t , " i s q u a l i f i e d a n d made t o g i v e w a y t o a r u l e o f c o n v e n i e n c e more j u s t a n d e q u i t a b l e , and more b e n e f i c i a l t o b o t h p a r t i e s . To h o l d i n s u c h c a s e t h a t e a c h i s t h e a b s o l u t e owner o f t h a t p a r t o f t h e t r e e s t a n d i n g o n o r o v e r h i s own l a n d w o u l d l e a d t o a mode o f d i v i s i o n o f t h e t r e e w h e n c u t t h a t w o u l d be i m p r a c t i c a b l e a n d w o u l d g i v e t h e r i g h t t o o n e t o hew down h i s p a r t o f t h e t r e e t o t h e l i n e , and thereby destroy t h e part belonging t ot h e other. The r u l e i s t h e r e f o r e s e t t l e d t h a t i n s u c h c a s e , t h e p a r t i e s a r e t e n a n t s i n common. "'A l a n d o w n e r who c u t s or destroys a tree g r o w i n g on t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f the a d j o i n i n g owner i s l i a b l e i n t r e s p a s s t o t h e latter f o r such i n j u r y f o r although, ordinarily, trespass will n o t l i e b y one t e n a n t i n common a g a i n s t h i s c o t e n a n t , y e t w h e n o n e t e n a n t i n common destroys the subject of the tenancy, trespass will l i e at the suit of the injured party.'" 33 T e n n . A p p . a t 9 5 - 9 6 , 2 2 9 S.W.2d a t 158 ( q u o t i n g Adjoining The Harding, the Landowners § 5 8 ) . trial court declared boundary-line opined, 1 Am. J u r . that tree her ownership i n this Ledford case, should at issue i t s cue be p e r m i t t e d because, of the adjacent 7 taking land t o remove the t r i a l gave from court her rights 2080473 extending the to the special adjacent by the center case of judgment. premise of the to the center of We In trial property the earth agree w i t h boundary-line i n the other manner words, line the rights the rights of the trial from t h a t p o i n t to the the into with sky" Youngs t h a t the court's unilateral to Y o u n g s as to judgment this proceedings permitting consistent with R E V E R S E D AND we to the over the We this concurs. 8 remand the opinion. the the given reverse and her current boundary-line Youngs Because must Ledford REMANDED. Thomas, J . , impunity. t r e e were not case, u n i l a t e r a l l y remove t h e t r e e . as tree. "cut p a r t i e s to the deprive the in cannot removal, the contrary trial then cut and and court the the unjustifiably in trumped into judgment, that property each the tree would however, s u g g e s t e d by each have ownership r i g h t s objection, tree, In to court's and i t s sky above i t . Ledford, litigation and the o w n e r s h i p r i g h t s t h a t c a n n o t be desires court's tree a l a n d o w n e r has other's o f t h e e a r t h and Youngs' of their property effect the by trial husband to cause f o r f u r t h e r 2080473 Thompson, Moore, P.J., concurs specially, with writing, J., joins. Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 9 with writing. which 2080473 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Judge, I concur f u l l y point the out that, general when, 525-26, t h e main regarding recognized f o r example, nuisance. Jur. although have a boundary opinion exceptions v. correctly Landowners line i s t h e common 18 some 78 Idaho (2005) a 522, See g e n e r a l l y 1 Am. ("Generally a of both abutting o w n e r s a n d n e i t h e r h a s t h e r i g h t t o damage o r d e s t r o y the tree without the consent or permission property rule constitutes Curington, § applies trees, tree (1957). Adjoining speciallyto to the general boundary-line S e e , e . g . , Lemon tree I write boundary-line 306 P . 2 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 2 - 9 3 2d specially. i n t h e main o p i n i o n . rule jurisdictions concurring of the other. r u l e i s q u a l i f i e d b y t h e r i g h t o f an a b u t t i n g or h e r p r o p e r t y unreasonable i n a r e a s o n a b l e way and, way. The damages o f t h e owners from boundary l i n e her t o remove removal." the trees, (footnotes In t h e present was pleaded, Ledford's n o t i n an by or threatened t r e e s may e n t i t l e or warrant a this owner t o u s e h i s conversely, suffered one However, court to to him or authorize omitted)). case, tried, contention the record and determined that s h e was 10 reflects on that the basis entitled the action of Kathy t o remove t h e 2080473 boundary-line located, trial issue at issue merely i n p a r t , on h e r p r o p e r t y . court in exception tree d i d not this to might apply. determine case the general As a result, rule to Moore, that J., rule trunk and the the boundary-line tree at a set nuisance forth i n the for which main before concurs. 11 r u l e b a s e d on a us. an opinion the q u e s t i o n whether Ledford i s not is d i d not plead, a v o i d the a p p l i c a t i o n of the g e n e r a l exception i t s She that constituted because might potential 2080473 BRYAN, Judge, Because that concurring the record the tree house, I contained concur such trial court's Idaho 5 2 2 , 306 authorized at i n the result. does issue i n the evidence, judgment. P.2d 1091 the p l a i n t i f f s posed a danger not contain posed a any e v i d e n c e danger t o Kathy result. However, I would have voted S e e , e . g . , Lemon (1957) had Ledford's the record to affirm v. (affirming proving a Curington, judgment t o remove a b o u n d a r y - l i n e t r e e t o t h e i r house but enjoined them from the 78 that that removing another b o u n d a r y - l i n e t r e e t h a t d i d n o t pose a danger t o t h e i r house). 12
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
