VIRGINIA T. SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIE L. MCCARTY, M.D., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A landowner is not liable for damages caused by encroaching trees and vegetation from their property onto a neighbor's land.
Appellant sued for damages to her property caused by her neighbor's overhanging tree branches and roots, and for damages from her own removal of the e…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Property Damage cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of appellant’s complaint for damages to her property which she alleged were caused by overhanging branches and roots of her neighbor’s trees encroaching on her property. She also alleged damages resulting from her removal of the portions of her neighbor’s tree intruding on her property. The trial court dismissed the complaint based upon Gallo v. Heller, 512 So.2d 215, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), in which the appellate court stated the common law rule as follows:
[A] possessor of land is not liable to persons outside the land for a nuisance resulting from trees and natural vegetation growing on the land. The adjoining property owner to such a nuisance, however, is privileged to trim back, at the adjoining owner’s own expense, any encroaching tree roots or branches and other vegetation which has grown onto his property.
The rationale for this conclusion was that it was wiser to leave the individual to protect himself than to subject the other to the annoyance of actions at law which would likely be innumerable. Id.
Appellant acknowledges that Gallo states the prevailing law but requests that we take a different course. We decline, finding that the Gallo view is the predominant view in the country. See Encroachment of Trees, Shrubbery, or Other Vegetation Across Boundary Line, 65 A.L.R.4th 603 (1988). We agree that departing from the precedent would invite further litigation between neighbors on this issue, which as a public policy matter should be avoided.
Affirmed.
TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Balzer v. Ryan, 263 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…the adjoining property owner “is privileged to trim back, at [his] own expense, any encroaching tree roots or branches . . . which has grown onto his property.” Gallo v. Heller, 512 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also Scott v. McCarty, 41 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting that Gallo reflects the predominate view around the country) (citing Encroachment of Trees, Shrubbery, or Other Vegetation Across Boundary Line, 65 A.L.R. 4th 603 (1988)). The issue in this case, however, is whether t…
-
Ramalho v. Boca Fontana HOA, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Avera v. State, 512 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)