Thanks for your responses, and njoasis, I will go outside and try to get a good pic of the leaves. hoseman.....I'd say on the tree that looks the worst, about 30 to 40% of the tree is affected. On the other, about 10 to 20%. There is a VERY large pile of leaves on the ground today after the bad storms we had yesterday. It is definitely a much larger amount than in years past, and I don't recall seeing the black spots in previous years. These tress had a rough start. We bought them while living in Atlanta, and paid $200 a piece for them. They were growing on a lattice. I know there is a name for that, but can"t think of it at the moment. Our intention was to keep them pruned and growing on the lattice, because it was so pretty. Shortly after planting them, (abut 6 mos) we were transfered to Birmingham. We asked the new owners of our home if they would mind if we planted something of there choice in their place, as we would like to take them with us. They were not plant people, and wanted no plants or trees in the back yard, so they were more than happy for us to take them. We also took all of my rose bushes, which are also doing great. We carefully followed the advise of someone on these forums, dug the trees up, put in a huge pot and moved them. Our house was being built so we left them at my Mom's form April until October. We re-planted them in our new house, and prayed. That was 4 years ago this October, and they were flourishing and absolutely gorgeous, even though the advice was it was risky to dig up nd move them. We eventually removed them from the lattice, because they were growing so fast it was becoming increasingly hard to keep them pruned on the lattice. They grew into lovely trees, about about 13 feet tall now. After all the work, and TLC these tress have received, I would be heartbroken to lose them now. I will post pics as soon as I can.

This is a red flag to me: > could they be planted just a foot or two from the fence, growing only out away from it? If this is a solid fence, like stockade or board, there's a significant "rain shadow" effect that you'll need to consider. IMHO, it's almost impossible to grow anything within 2 or 3 feet of a solid fence, unless you're willing and able to provide most of the moisture yourself - and that's a lot of water. I have such a fence, and wasted a lot of cash (3 times) trying to establish rows of holly, cedar, and, finally, magnolia (M. virginiana, in my case). When I finally gave up on crowding the plants against the fence, acknowledged that this privacy screen was a very important aspect of my yard, and set aside enough space for it to do it properly, I succeeded on the 4th try, by planting everything centered at least 5' from the fence. I still had to irrigate and mulch, but it was a much more reasonable amount of water. Last, I'd be very careful placing any hollies anywhere near a pool, except ones with smooth leaves. You've only got to step on a dry leaf with bare feet once to remember it for a very long time.

...but it is being sold as "Dwarf Southern Magnolia" per the Monrovia tag. I just replaced a 20+ foot white pine with a "Little Gem" in May. The blossoms are lemony-scented. It will take some years for this to get more than 8 feet wide; once it gets very tall, it may be difficult to maintain that width. I've always found them attractive here in Portland. I think it would be a good idea to dig down a ways AND berm up a little and amend your soil, but I'm sure a lot of the Little Gems put in around here are plunked down in clayey yards and I don't see them dying. Full sun is recommended. You may have to call around--it might be late in the season to find such a popular tree. Got mine at 7-Dee's on SE Powell.

Perhaps 'unethical' is a better term than 'illegal'.....although illegality will still come into play with any patented cultivars even if it is highly unlikely the plant police will come knocking on your door :-) The issue is that with most woody plants - and my previous comments were directed only at these - named cultivars seldom (like hardly ever) come true from seed. Even if they look identical to the parent there is no guaratee that they are or will remain looking so throughout their lifespan. Assigning the cultivar name to seedlings of that cultivar - rather than those that have been vegetatively propagated - and introducing them into commerce just distorts and dilutes the validity of that cultivar. We see this all the time with seed grown "cultivars" of Japanese maples, 'Bloodgood' being at the top of the list. As much as they may look like Bloodgoods, they are a just a red leafed version of Acer palmatum. Nothing wrong with seed grown JM's.......or Magnolia grandiflora or any of countless other named cultivars of most other tree species. This is often where new cultivars arise.....a random seedling that offers some unique attributes. But it is never valid/appropriate/ethical (and in the case of a patented plant, legal) to call these seedlings by the parent cultivar name.