The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the property owner to remove the remaining 19 ficus trees along the shared property line. The dispute began over a row of 38 ficus trees planted along the boundary between two neighbouring homes in Southern California. A long legal fight between two California neighbours over invasive tree roots has ended in state court, with a judge ordering the complete removal of a boundary hedge after years of failed attempts to reach a solution. The fast-growing trees, often used to create privacy screens, developed large underground root systems that spread into the neighbouring yard. The roots damaged landscaping and threatened nearby structures.
The roots had continued to spread despite an earlier out-of-court settlement.
Under the terms, the owner of the trees paid $78,500 (£60,300) to compensate the neighbour for damage caused by the roots. A total of 19 of the 38 ficus trees were cut down to reduce the spread of the roots, while leaving part of the hedge in place to provide some privacy. To settle the original dispute without a lengthy court battle, the two neighbours reached a formal agreement. As part of the same agreement, both parties decided to remove exactly half of the row.
Evidence presented during the case showed that the remaining 19 trees were still sending invasive roots across the boundary. It issued an order requiring the tree owner to remove all 19 remaining ficus trees. It concluded that removing the final 19 ficus trees was a necessary and reasonable step to stop the ongoing nuisance.
With the roots continuing to cause problems, the affected neighbour returned to court to seek a lasting solution. The trial court ruled in favour of the neighbour who had complained. The tree owner then appealed the decision, challenging the order to cut down the rest of the hedge. In an unpublished opinion in case number D085598, Armendariz v. Renfro, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, upheld the trial court’s decision in full. The appeals court found that the trial court had the authority to order the complete removal of the remaining trees.
The roots caused further property damage despite the earlier payment and partial removal of the trees. The court noted that the earlier financial settlement and partial removal had failed to stop the roots from spreading across the property line.