CHOCOLATE CHIP TRIP said:

---

trouble said:

---

You really have to try to look like more of an ass than schmellba but by God, you nailed it.

---

I just like busting people's balls.

---

It's not a good look.

Politics and General material. You get more blue stars there anyway.

CHOCOLATE CHIP TRIP said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CHOCOLATE CHIP TRIP said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CHOCOLATE CHIP TRIP said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Seems strange your lawyer woulnd't send them a letter explaining that they have been notified several times of the potential hazard of the tree and should it fall and damage your property, a lawsuit will be forthcoming to recover all expenses for damages plus lawyer's fees and also gently reminding them of the consequences of what might happen legally if there is an injury to a person or pet as a result of negligence on their part.

---

What would be your basis for claiming attorneys' fees?

---

I'd throw it in on any lawsuit, especially if somebody has been notified of a danger previously and is willfully ignoring it.

If it gets tossed, it gets tossed. But seems that including fees for damages incurred is a standard procedure, especially if you incur any monetary losses that require a lawyer to settle up - otherwise you aren't made whole, which is the entire point of insurance/lawsuits to begin with.

---

I'm just asking what your basis would be. Is it something in Chapter 38 of the TCPRC, or something else?

Or are you saying you'd sign and file a pleading with the court that you know is partially frivolous?

---

Not being a lawyer, I don't know every damned code. Didn't realize this was going to turn into the standard "let's split hairs over something really kind of trivial" thread, but this is the OB and I should have known better.

If I'm damaged due to the actions of somebody else and it requires me to spend money - whether through a lawyer or other means - to recover my damages, I consider those expenses as part of my damages and will definitely include those costs in the invoice because not doing so means I'm not made whole. And I wouldn't consider such costs as frivolous.

I also know that if you don't ask for something, you'll never get it. Contract negotiation 101 stuff there, which I do on occasion through my career.

But hey, I'm sure you'll find some obscure thing to pick on in that statement as well. Have at it brosephus, go get your jollies off.

---

Oh, you're not a lawyer. Then I would recommend you not advise the OP on legal matters you know nothing about, like whether or not his attorneys' fees would be recoverable in litigation.

---

He didn't advise him to draw up a lawsuit himself. He didn't give him any legal advice except parameters to discuss with the attorney. Surely if bad legal advice, the attorney would inform him. Your response is asinine.

Maybe you can build a prop or some kind of goalpost to keep the tree from falling towards you cheaper than it can be cut down. Maybe said goalpost needs some extremely bright lights to shine on the tree. For monitoring purposes.

Have Greg Abbott give them a call. There's a story he can tell.

I am an arborist and a former certified wildland sawyer, I would not want to touch that tree. If I owmed a tree service, I would charge out the nose for that one.

Belton Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh, you're not a lawyer. Then I would recommend you not advise the OP on legal matters you know nothing about, like whether or not his attorneys' fees would be recoverable in litigation.

---

---

Well, mostly bird law.

I read page one and got to the bottom. Thought it was an interesting and frustrating situation. Once at the bottom I saw I had read page one of three and thought this must be an old thread that got dug up... how could this go three pages in a matter of several hours? It's interesting but not THAT interesting.

I should have known it devolved into some stupid pissing match. Of course a tool attorney was the instigator.

You're a builder with connections to tree people. Get them to do it at a cut rate price and hook them up with legit work when you can. That's the best I got.

Run your sprinklers for 10 hours a day for 4-5 days then make that tree "spontaneously combust"

CHOCOLATE CHIP TRIP said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CHOCOLATE CHIP TRIP said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

CHOCOLATE CHIP TRIP said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Seems strange your lawyer woulnd't send them a letter explaining that they have been notified several times of the potential hazard of the tree and should it fall and damage your property, a lawsuit will be forthcoming to recover all expenses for damages plus lawyer's fees and also gently reminding them of the consequences of what might happen legally if there is an injury to a person or pet as a result of negligence on their part.

---

What would be your basis for claiming attorneys' fees?

---

I'd throw it in on any lawsuit, especially if somebody has been notified of a danger previously and is willfully ignoring it.

If it gets tossed, it gets tossed. But seems that including fees for damages incurred is a standard procedure, especially if you incur any monetary losses that require a lawyer to settle up - otherwise you aren't made whole, which is the entire point of insurance/lawsuits to begin with.

---

I'm just asking what your basis would be. Is it something in Chapter 38 of the TCPRC, or something else?

Or are you saying you'd sign and file a pleading with the court that you know is partially frivolous?

---

Not being a lawyer, I don't know every damned code. Didn't realize this was going to turn into the standard "let's split hairs over something really kind of trivial" thread, but this is the OB and I should have known better.

If I'm damaged due to the actions of somebody else and it requires me to spend money - whether through a lawyer or other means - to recover my damages, I consider those expenses as part of my damages and will definitely include those costs in the invoice because not doing so means I'm not made whole. And I wouldn't consider such costs as frivolous.

I also know that if you don't ask for something, you'll never get it. Contract negotiation 101 stuff there, which I do on occasion through my career.

But hey, I'm sure you'll find some obscure thing to pick on in that statement as well. Have at it brosephus, go get your jollies off.

---

Oh, you're not a lawyer. Then I would recommend you not advise the OP on legal matters you know nothing about, like whether or not his attorneys' fees would be recoverable in litigation.

---

Are you a lawyer?
Are you a fake lawyer currently awaiting your day in court for pretending to be a lawyer?

I'm not your attorney and this is not legal advice, but rather something that I would consider carefully if I was in your shoes, along with some questions that might provide us more insight.

If you do offer to pay some or all of the cost to cut it down, I would be very careful about how I did so. What if someone gets injured, or worse, when doing the work? Did you just become a defendant in the lawsuit the widow files? Sure, this is an inherently risky business, and insurance,etc, but the fact is that they will sue anyone they can, and especially people with money to go after.

If this tree is as dangerous as some professionals on here suggest, is there a school or program that teaches how to address these tough ones that could use this as training, with sufficient manpower to provide safety?

Has your lawn guy given you an estimate for taking it down? How risky does he see it?

Since a bucket truck sounds impossible to get in there, would a crane with a man cage be an option? Or are there enough nearby trees on opposite sides for a guy to be tethered to via pulleys to keep him from falling to the ground if the tree that needs cutting gave way unexpectedly?

Are the professionals on here more worried about the branches that currently remain intact or the risk of the trunk breaking when climbing it?

Someone post the helicopter chainsaw clip, that's clearly the answer.

Had similar situation years ago. I called my insurance company and they claimed that the neighbors insurance company wouldn't cover anything since the tree was dead. Dropped that in the next conversation and he finally came around.

Generally speaking, I resent anyone or anything that causes me to agree extensively with or feel empathy for schmellba99.

So piss off you cookie wanker.

AggieChemist said:

---

Generally speaking, I resent anyone or anything that causes me to agree extensively with or feel empathy for schmellba99.

---

This x1000

Lawsuits don't fix anything except the lawyers pockets. Everyone goes to the " law suit" route but don't realize that you can't get blood out a turnip. If these folks are broke........s even if you get a judgement on them you end up with nothing anyway.... except paying a lawyer.
If they are rich folks and you think they have money then seems they would have cut the tree down to protect their risk and liability exposure.
I was involved in a similar situation but it involved a fence and gate. I would not have gained anything but suing and winning as bottom line neighbor had no money. I manned up and spent the dollars myself and that ended it.
This situation seems much more liable than mine with even a possibility of death or injury if it falls.
If my family was involved and a chance one of them could be hurt I would just pay for it and end it and move on.
Whatever the cost, it would be trivial compared to having a family member hurt or worse, dead.

I am a Georgia lawyer. A 5 second Westlaw search turned this up:

While "there is no duty to consistently and constantly check all pine trees for non-visible rot," as a reasonable landowner, the presence of blighted pine trees with "visible, apparent, and patent" decay among a stand of pine trees gives rise to a duty to inspect. Wade v. Howard, supra at 58, 499 S.E.2d 652; Willis v. Maloof, supra at 350, 361 S.E.2d 512; Cornett v. Agee, supra at 57, 237 S.E.2d 522. "[O]nly if [the landowner] knew or reasonably should have known the tree was diseased, decayed or otherwise constituted a dangerous condition," did the owner become liable. Wade v. Howard, supra at 58, 499 S.E.2d 652; Willis v. Maloof, supra at 350, 361 S.E.2d 512. Thus, the landowner has constructive notice of what a reasonable inspection would reveal as to individual trees within the blighted area. Therefore, a jury was free to conclude, as it did, that a reasonable inspection should reveal the rotten cavity in the tree that fell, which had been present for ten to fifteen years.

Wesleyan Coll. v. Weber, 238 Ga. App. 90, 94, 517 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1999).

I'm sure there is a similar law in Texas. If you were a Georgia client, I'd recommend sending a certified letter with pics of the blighted tree. Demand he take it down and that if it falls there could be significant damages to property and potential personal injury. Being more aggressive would be to file a suit after sending the letter suing in nuisance and demanding an equitable order that the tree be removed. In Georgia, I'd seek attorney fees for having to go to all those steps.

Not intended to be legal advice, since I assume you are in Texas. But I imagine if you consulted with a lawyer, he or she would give you similar advice.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I am a Georgia lawyer. A 5 second Westlaw search turned this up:

While "there is no duty to consistently and constantly check all pine trees for non-visible rot," as a reasonable landowner, the presence of blighted pine trees with "visible, apparent, and patent" decay among a stand of pine trees gives rise to a duty to inspect. Wade v. Howard, supra at 58, 499 S.E.2d 652; Willis v. Maloof, supra at 350, 361 S.E.2d 512; Cornett v. Agee, supra at 57, 237 S.E.2d 522. "[O]nly if [the landowner] knew or reasonably should have known the tree was diseased, decayed or otherwise constituted a dangerous condition," did the owner become liable. Wade v. Howard, supra at 58, 499 S.E.2d 652; Willis v. Maloof, supra at 350, 361 S.E.2d 512. Thus, the landowner has constructive notice of what a reasonable inspection would reveal as to individual trees within the blighted area. Therefore, a jury was free to conclude, as it did, that a reasonable inspection should reveal the rotten cavity in the tree that fell, which had been present for ten to fifteen years.

Wesleyan Coll. v. Weber, 238 Ga. App. 90, 94, 517 S.E.2d 813, 817 (1999).

I'm sure there is a similar law in Texas. If you were a Georgia client, I'd recommend sending a certified letter with pics of the blighted tree. Demand he take it down and that if it falls there could be significant damages to property and potential personal injury. Being more aggressive would be to file a suit after sending the letter suing in nuisance and demanding an equitable order that the tree be removed. In Georgia, I'd seek attorney fees for having to go to all those steps.

Not intended to be legal advice, since I assume you are in Texas. But I imagine if you consulted with a lawyer, he or she would give you similar advice.

---

Damn, it's amazing what happens when the adults talk and children stay in their place.