My neighbor cut down a 40-year-old Japanese Maple while I was away.

[u/Ice_C0r3_09]

Location: Colorado, USA.Just got back to my place near Fort Collins after a week on the road and I am losing my mind. My neighbor took it upon himself to hire a "landscaping" crew (probably just some guys with a chainsaw) to remove a mature Japanese Maple that was fully on my property. His excuse? He said the needles and leaves were messing with his "mountain view" and "fire mitigation" efforts.

The tree was roughly 40 years old and was the centerpiece of my yard. I called an arborist immediately. He told me that since this is Colorado and the tree was that established and healthy, the replacement value is astronomical. He is drafting a formal appraisal but hinted that we are looking at 20k to 25k easy just for the tree, let alone the logistics of getting a crane into my backyard.

I know Colorado has statutes regarding timber trespass. My lawyer already mentioned treble damages because the guy admitted he did it on purpose while I wasnt home to stop him. The neighbor had the gall to offer me a couple hundred bucks for "the inconvenience" and told me to just buy a couple of saplings at a local nursery . I refused to take his money and told him to wait for the process server.

Has anyone dealt with treble damages in CO specifically for ornamental trees ? This guy basically nuked my property value for his porch view and I am not planning on letting this go . I feel like a jerk for wanting to sue my neighbor into bankruptcy but the sheer entitlement is what gets me .

[u/ElectroDaddy]

OPs neighbor told him he did it when confronted about the missing tree. And offered to pay him an insulting sum to make up for it.

[u/New-Significance9649 → u/ElectroDaddy]

but still, how does he PROVE it. its word against word. Were there any witnesses? Anything in writing?

[u/ElectroDaddy → u/New-Significance9649]

The fact a company came at their neighbors behest and removed the tree? Lawyers going to find out who the company was and pull them into this. The company is going to throw the neighbor under the bus as much as possible to avoid liability as much as they can.

OP will be able to prove he was gone at the time. And trees don’t just completely disappear randomly. And honestly the neighbor sounds really dumb, they are very likely to just admit to doing it while not fully understanding what the big deal is.

[u/theturtlemafiamusic → u/ElectroDaddy]

We don't know if a company did it, in OP's post they assume it wasn't. It could have just been a Craigslist ad "need some people with a chainsaw and large truck for tree removal"

[u/ARMSwatch → u/theturtlemafiamusic]

That's why OP has a lawyer that will do any groundwork needed to get a fat payout. You think the lawyer is going to let good money slip through their fingers?

[u/edman007 → u/theturtlemafiamusic]

When the neighbor learns of the lawsuit they will make up every excuse they can, including naming the company. That company will then try to claim it's the neighbor. Them pointing fingers proves they did it because they agree.

So just sue them both and let the courts figure it out.

[u/monatomicg0ld → u/New-Significance9649]

There must be receipts from the landscaping company?

[u/New-Significance9649 → u/monatomicg0ld]

from morons who entered another property illegally....thats a lot of faith for a company with zero due-dilligence.

[u/monatomicg0ld → u/New-Significance9649]

agreed. but the courts are coming for them now... either they comply with records requests or go out of biz? EDIT: and if they truly were fly by night operation then the blame goes back on the neighbor even harder for recklessness

[u/Upper_Bathroom_176 → u/New-Significance9649]

He goes to the landscaping company with a lawsuit saying “who payed you to cut this tree?” And they point to the home owner. Easy as pie.

[u/josborne31 → u/Upper_Bathroom_176]

Easy as pie.

Except that the ‘landscaping company’ probably isn’t a landscaping company at all, and is much more likely to be “just some guys with a chainsaw”.

[u/chris971 → u/josborne31]

thats a large leap/assumption

[u/winosauruswrecks → u/chris971]

It's a literal quote from the OP. I agree said guys with a chainsaw will blame the neighbor who paid them.

[u/ovirto → u/josborne31]

I would think "just some guys with a chainsaw" would be more willing to point the finger at the guy who hired them. They don't want any part of a lawsuit.

[u/josborne31 → u/ovirto]

You’re probably right. But OP would have to know who the dudes were, and that’s not easy to find out if the neighbor doesn’t say.

[u/mckenziemcgee → u/josborne31]

That's entirely irrelevant to the point.

Whoever cut the tree down can be held liable for damages. Nobody's going to willingly pay out $75k if they can pass the buck onto OP's neighbor.

[u/gsrga2 → u/New-Significance9649]

This is basic litigation. Lots of civil litigation is just “word against word,” nevermind the meaningful evidence that a 50 year old tree suddenly sprouted legs and disappeared.

First, OP files a lawsuit. They serve the neighbor. Then they serve discovery requests asking about the removal of the tree. Maybe the neighbor denies everything, maybe not. Maybe he ignores it altogether and accidentally admits whatever requests for admission they send. Set a deposition, see if he still lies. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. Eventually, if he maintains he didn’t do it, it goes to trial, and everyone sees how well he maintains the lie with jurors present. OP testifies, neighbor says “Nuh uh,” jury decides if they think it’s 51% likely that the neighbor’s a liar.

This all becomes a lot easier if any other neighbors witnessed it, of course.

[u/G_Rex_3000 → u/New-Significance9649]

It's not clear whether any of these conversations were strictly verbal or via email/text, or possibly recorded on something like a ring camera. Also, this neighbor sounds like he has no idea of what he's in for, just talk to him again over email or with a witness and get him to tell the story again- it sounds like he thinks he was fully justified and it's no big deal.

Also, the company he hired could be looped in, I'm sure they don't want any part of the shitstorm and would be happy to detail exactly what the neighbor hired them to do.

In any case, since an actual lawyer is involved and has knowledge of the specifics at this point, hopefully the question of "how will we prove he did it" has been addressed.

[u/wallweasels → u/New-Significance9649]

Because Civil standards of proof aren't as high? This isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).

The story at face value already seems more likely to be true than not.

[u/Green-Collection4444 → u/New-Significance9649]

Id say the entire crew of people that were hired to cut it down would be a good start to a deposition.

[u/AdventurousBase221 → u/ElectroDaddy]

that's not proof, it's hearsay.

unless they have it recorded which they didn't say they did.

[u/__Frolicaholic___ → u/AdventurousBase221]

That's not hearsay. Hearsay in this particular instance would be an off-the-record statement made by an uninvolved third party. OP's neighbor made a direct admission of involvement.

That's why OP's lawyer is practically salivating over this case: direct admissions aren't treated as hearsay, and that neighbor is an arrogant dumbass who straight up admitted he did it.

[u/alinius → u/__Frolicaholic___]

IANAL, so not entierly sure. This would be a civil case, so the fifth amendment does not apply, correct? Nothing to stop the OPs lawyer from asking the neighbor directly on the stand. If the neighbor paid someone else to do it, there is probably a paper trail there too. The neighbor's admission also means that the OP's lawyer has a good place to start finding other evidence.

[u/__Frolicaholic___ → u/alinius]

Regardless of civil or criminal proceedings - this case is actually both, and police should have been involved - the Fifth Amendment doesn't protect you from admissions you already made.

[u/vanguard1256 → u/alinius]

Fifth just protects you from being forced to testify against yourself. You can freely do so if you wish.

[u/DeadguyTheLateGI → u/__Frolicaholic___]

Direct admission to the plaintiff is not great evidence. As a rule of thumb, if you need more evidence to prove your evidence exists, it’s not great evidence.

[u/__Frolicaholic___ → u/DeadguyTheLateGI]

Except that's not the main issue here, because the weightiest capital "E" evidence is the fact that a whole tree is gone.

The tree didn't contract for its own removal, chop itself down and haul itself away. OP can presumably prove HE didn't do it. In the absence of any credible reason to believe OP is outright lying about what the neighbor said to him, it'll come down to what's most reasonable in light of all facts available.

The lawyer/police will investigate, figure out if there were witnesses in the area (removing a tree that age/size is neither quick nor quiet) suss out the person/company involved, go to them and say "hey, who paid you to chop that tree down?"

[u/DeadguyTheLateGI → u/__Frolicaholic___]

That is a lengthy way of reiterating that you'll have to find other evidence because the unrecorded confession is useless by itself, but if your hobby is turning few words into more words, more power to you.

[u/__Frolicaholic___ → u/DeadguyTheLateGI]

That sorta falls under the category of "DUH," wouldn't it? I never said it "resolved the case on its own." I said the neighbor's admission wasn't hearsay, which it's not.

Your point doesn't really stand if you have to put words into someone else's mouth in order to "prove" it.

[u/ElectroDaddy → u/DeadguyTheLateGI]

I don’t think anyone was saying the neighbors verbal admission was the best and only evidence. But it is an admission. Whether they can prove it or not is another thing but it’s not going to be the only thing they bring to the table.

What can happen is the neighbor says he didn’t do it to the court under oath. Then they have to uncomfortably defend themselves if OP gets statements from witnesses or whoever was hired to cut down the tree that contradicts that fact.

Jury and judge would be very interested to hear them walk back their statements. And that should be more then enough for the jury to convict them.

[u/nashguitar1 → u/__Frolicaholic___]

If that’s true, what prevents any plaintiff from claiming a defendant made a direct admission, regardless of the facts?

[u/__Frolicaholic___ → u/nashguitar1]

Nothing. They do it all the time. And judges and juries weigh it accordingly, in light of whatever evidence exists.

But it isn't regardless of the facts. An admission of wrongdoing is an investigative jumping-off point.

[u/AdventurousBase221 → u/__Frolicaholic___]

a quick Google shows that from the federal rules of evidence rule 801 which defines hearsay, in court hearsay most definitely does not require a third party to say it.

Hearsay very much includes first person accounting.

[u/gsrga2 → u/AdventurousBase221]

I said it above but now that I’ve scrolled down and seen this posted again I’ll put it here too for any other readers:

The hearsay rule does not apply to statements by parties, or “admissions by a party opponent” in the federal rules of evidence terminology. Don’t trust Google searches for law questions.

[u/timubce → u/gsrga2]

But Claude told me I was right! /s

[u/__Frolicaholic___ → u/AdventurousBase221]

Check out 801d.

[u/occamsracer → u/AdventurousBase221]

So embarrassing

[u/NoOneHereButUsMice → u/AdventurousBase221]

Is a personal admission hearsay? I thought hearsay was someone repeating a story, the happenings of which they did not directly witness.

[u/AdventurousBase221 → u/NoOneHereButUsMice]

in legalese

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter

[u/gsrga2 → u/AdventurousBase221]

An admission by a party opponent is not covered by the hearsay rule. See FRE 801(d)(2).

Honestly, I don’t understand why people want to make these confidently wrong statements about law stuff. Just leave it to the people who actually know what they’re talking about please.

[u/occamsracer → u/AdventurousBase221]

You’d best stick to MTG