Hagopian went to court after the trees were not removed and his money was not returned. (AI image)
Seth Merle and Richard Hagopian had agreed to pay $2,000 each to remove the trees, but the work never happened. The judge ruled in Hagopian’s favour and ordered Merle to return the $2,000, along with court costs. Because the issue had already been decided, on September 23, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that he could not bring the case again.
In its ruling, the court said the dispute concerning the trees on Hagopian’s property had been fully resolved. A disagreement between two neighbours in Michigan over trees that threatened a barn has ended with an appeals court ruling against the homeowner who wanted them removed. After a dispute over the money reached court, Merle filed another lawsuit over the same trees. They also agreed that if the work could not be completed, Merle would return Hagopian’s money. However, the trees were not removed, and Hagopian did not get his money back and it soon became a court dispute. When the tree removal did not take place, Hagopian approached a small claims court to recover the money he had paid. Merle responded that Hagopian had failed to take proper care of the trees and that this had caused him damages. The court also rejected Merle’s claim that Hagopian had been negligent in maintaining the trees. It also stated that if any of those trees later fell and damaged Merle’s property, Merle would be responsible for the damage.
Merle filed a new case, again raising concerns about the trees growing on Hagopian’s land. He argued that the trees were dangerous and that his neighbour had failed to maintain them properly. He also complained about branches extending onto his property and asked the court to take action.