The thing with laws concerning trees, fencing, pools, etc. is done on the local level of government. One township, town, city's ordinances will vary from one to another.

Being a good neighbor has its benefits. I see your point about pinpointing the tree that is doing the damage. I wonder if her garage meets property set back regulations.

I cannot tell for sure, but if I had a suspect for tree roots causing damage to a structure, my suspect would be the maple, not the cherry, depending on size and many other variables. Maples are notorious for having aggressive roots systems, particularly silver and Norway maples, which are the species commonly planted in urban areas. They also rot out in the middle after about 80+ years and then the tops fall off on houses. If I wanted to ensure no root problems on my property, I would remove any Norway maples. However, tree removal is very expensive no matter where you live. Also, you need to be vigilant or trees will re-sprout into hydras from the stumps. So stump grinding adds another layer of cost. It could be multiple roots from multiple trees causing the problem. And if you cut a tree's roots, more will just grow to replace them eventually, if the tree doesn't die because too much damage has been done. This could be a case of multiple suspects. I would only agree to pay for half of the tree removal and call it a day at the most. At the very least you will have your neighbor off your back. As far as the damage, I doubt she would sue you and win but I am no tree lawyer.

I suggest posting this with photos on the tree forum. And definitely getting another opinion from another arborist. All "arborists" are not the same, there is a professional group that certifies them and you can look up local certified arborists on that web site. Call your local cooperative extension service for a recommendation on where to find a certified arborist.

I have a huge maple on my front lawn, right at the property line. Roots were getting into the neighbors main drain. Ultimately they had to dig up and replace the line and also remove an unused septic tank. They cut away all the roots on their side, which they had the right to do. I thought the tree would never survive after losing so many huge roots, but it did.

Why doesn’ t your neighbor pay to have the offending roots removed from her property? They have the right to do that. You are not obligated to remove the tree nor pay for it.

I'd remove the tree in a heartbeat. No tree is worth having a bad relationship with a neighbor. IMO, trees should not be planted along property lines. I think that trees should be planted well within one's own property, so that they do not overhang neighbors' property, do not send roots into neighboring property and do not shade a neighbor's property.

I think the no trees on property lines posters must live in places with really big yards. Most of our houses have been on small enough lots that if everyone followed some rule that trees can't overhand or even shade any part of another lot, there would be no trees anywhere in the neighborhood. Personally I have loved my neighbors' trees that provide some shade and beauty for the neighborhood.

I think I would try to confirm which tree is causing the damage. If it is the small tree, I would take my neighbor's offer. No matter what the law says, that's a small amount of money to keep the peace with a neighbor, IMO. If it is not the small tree, then you all can talk about solutions based on the facts.

I don't live in a place where yards are big. I still do not think trees should be planted along property lines. Small trees can still be planted in small yards, without affecting neighbors. There are some really beautiful small trees.

IMO, there are a lot of inappropriately oversized trees being planted in small yards, often along the property line where they affect a neighbor's entire yard (shading their entire yard or putting out roots that affect a neighbor's entire yard). If you live somewhere where the yards are all tiny and the houses are close together, this really isn't a place for big trees or trees planted near the property line. While some people do like shade, a lot of people do not want their property shaded by a neighbor's trees (and the shade can also affect their ability to do things like grow what they want in their own yard or put solar panels on their roof). The solution is to plant appropriately-sized trees and keep them on one's own property.

"IMO, trees should not be planted along property lines. I think that trees should be planted well within one's own property, so that they do not overhang neighbors' property, do not send roots into neighboring property and do not shade a neighbor's property."

This is an extremely unrealistic viewpoint. Even small trees have the potential for getting significantly larger than expected and there is NO way one can control the root spread.....which is tyically about 2-3 times the diameter most folks think it is.

I guess it depends on how one values trees. A well-established mature tree in good health adds considerably to property values. And many larger growing trees are planted - even in smaller gardens - for the shade and cooling aspects they provide for the residence. And I think the above attitude may be somewhat regionally oriented as well.........in my area, very large native trees are commonplace on just about any property, regardless of lot size. And in most cases, their removal (including with new construction) is restricted and must be permitted and then the tree replaced with another, approved variety of appropriate size.

Fortunately, with the exception of an HOA restriction or neighborhood gardening covenants in some developments, one is able to plant what they want where they want on their property. And that is as it should be. I don't tell you what and where you can plant in your garden and you don't tell me what and where I can plant in mine!!

Yes: despite the sense of entitlement some seem to have* unless it is something offensive to the entire community like a meth lab or a new building that is constructed in an unsafe manner it doesn't work to have people telling other people what they can do on their own lots, based on the complainer's personal preferences. That's why pertinent ordinances often end up being written the way they are. If somebody is bothered by what a neighbor is doing - and it is something like keeping a tree they don't like - the common rule is that they can prune it off their own lot etc. But they have no rights to what is done with the tree beyond their property line. And it's not up to the neighbor to come over and do something to their own property to make them feel better.

*Such as neighbor here with house probably at least 60 ft. from my security lighting, with trees between who complains periodically that my lights "shine right in our bedroom window". They have been here for many years and have never planted trees or hedging of their own. And apparently have never put effective blinds or curtains on this window! The griping only stops when I turn the particular light that is bothering them at the time off

"I don't tell you what and where you can plant in your garden and you don't tell me what and where I can plant in mine!!"

When you plant a tree that shades a good portion of a neighbor's property, this is exactly what you are doing to your neighbor. You are depriving them of the ability to grow anything that doesn't grow in the shady conditions that you have decided to create on their property. You are absolutely dictating what they can and cannot grow on their own property, possibly affecting their ability to put up solar panels, possibly depriving them of natural light inside their home, etc. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think it's okay to do something like that. It's definitely not neighborly.

You are absolutely dictating what they can and cannot grow on their own property

Suppose you move in next to a party with a hosta collection that is using the shade from trees on the lot you just bought to grow these plants. And you cut these trees down so you can grow vegetables. Does that neighbor now have a legitimate beef with you?

American cities are losing many more trees than they are planting. Meanwhile there is a condo dweller in my town that grows vegetables in a planter box. They show up repeatedly at organized meetings aimed at promoting tree protection and planting to make your exact same complaint - that trees shade solar panels and vegetable plantings. Despite what benefits these do produce solar panels and home grown vegetables do not compensate for a lack of large trees in a community.

When you plant a tree that shades

Public policy favors trees and for good reason. People change houses on the average, every 7 years or so. Griping because someone puts in a tiny seedling that may grow up some day to produce shade is like griping at a woman for having a baby because it might make a lot of kiddy noises when it is a kid and disturb the quiet.

"When you plant a tree that shades a good portion of a neighbor's property, this is exactly what you are doing to your neighbor. You are depriving them of the ability to grow anything that doesn't grow in the shady conditions that you have decided to create on their property. You are absolutely dictating what they can and cannot grow on their own property, possibly affecting their ability to put up solar panels, possibly depriving them of natural light inside their home, etc. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think it's okay to do something like that. It's definitely not neighborly."

Since shade producing trees do not grow overnight.....it takes decades before they are of sufficient size to shade even their own garden space, let alone encroach on neighboring sunlight..........one has the option of not selecting a house that is affected by a large tree on a neighboring property. And very few homeowners remain in the same property for the length of time it takes for a young shade tree to grow up into a full sized mature specimen - the average residency is only 13 years and NO tree will reach maturity that quickly!! So these complaints are really without much basis :-) And it is important to remember that there are just as many properties with large yards that can easily accommodate big trees as there are smaller ones.

There are a lot of "ifs" in this. Can you post a photo of the tree in relation to your neighbors garage and also the maples on her property? Is it a flowering cherry/ornamental tree? How much do you like it? Unless I just loved, loved, loved the tree, I would chop it down, and plant a replacement somewhere on the other side of my property. If my neighbor complained about the roots of one of my cherry trees ruining her garage, I would call one of my buddies that heats with wood, ask him to come over and fell the tree and haul away the wood for free and then I would treat the stump and plant other things around the stump well away from the property line. I would be making a neighborly gesture big-time, to accommodate my neighbors concerns. Then I would politely ignore any more of the issues they brought up about it. I would consider that I had gone beyond the call of duty on the neighborly consideration scale. I cut out several bushes and a small tree that had roots infringing into my last neighbors yard, and they didn't even ask me to do it. I just didn't want to have it become an issue. On the flip side, if half of a leaf on one of my beloved trees on the other side of the yard made it to the neighbors yard, they got upset. I pruned the tree so it was slightly lopsided for that reason. At some point you need to say enough is enough and I think taking down your beloved tree is enough, more than enough. I might not even do that, depends on the tree and what services it was providing me on my property, and how easily it could be replaced.

I am glad some of you are not my neighbors. I value trees. I bought in a wooded area that has restrictions that prohibit you from removing any tree with a certain trunk diameter unless it is diseased or you get approval (for putting in a pool or such, in which case they usually require a certain number of trees or large bushes to be planted to maintain vegetation). I thought the rules were a bit over the top until I saw some of these replies.

Tree roots that cause problems with drains and water lines or buildings do need to be addressed, but you have to correctly identify the problem or all you have done is kill a tree and caused more damage and expense. And when you kill a tree you lose both property value and many environmental benefits. The entire Houston area is encouraging more tree planting both to recover from those lost in the flooding and to help avoid and control flooding issues in the future.

The neighbor with the hostas can plant their own tree, to shade their own plants, on their own property.

"I am glad some of you are not my neighbors. I value trees." I, personally, value people more than trees.

I lived at my last house for long enough (11 years) that trees planted behind me (after I bought the house) grew up, shaded my entire (very small) back yard and turned my bright home (that had a lot of wonderful natural light when I bought it) into a dark cave. The same thing happened to a lot of people in that community and they were not happy. It also affected us in that our homes were much colder in the winters and required more heating. It most certainly does not take decades for some trees to grow large enough to cast a LOT of shade.

I agree that Anerican cities are losing more trees than they are planting. This is largely due to they way we are allowing developers to build houses...tons of houses, packed tightly together, on tiny lots. There are other ways that we could choose to develop that would leave space for trees to be planted, while still allowing people who want natural light in their homes to have that, leaving sunlight available for rooftop solar panels, and leaving areas for people to grow sun-loving plants. A lot of people, myself included, find a dark home (deprived of natural light) to be a pretty unwelcoming place.

I have plenty of trees in my yard. I have three mature birch trees, a silk tree, a huge locust tree (placed pretty much in the middle of my back yard), three large pine trees, a mature yew (planted before I bought my home, that I do not like because it's toxic), two crepe myrtles and I have 12 fruit trees. They are planted so that they do not shade my home overly, do not shade my roof or my neighbors' roofs, and do not shade my neighbors' yards. The fruit trees are kept pruned to a reasonable size. The birch trees were planted along the property line, before I bought my house. I am pretty sure that they do drop stuff into my neighbor's yard, though they do not shade it (due to the direction of the sun). If my neighbor ever mentions that they are bothering him, I will get out the chainsaw. The pine trees are also near the property line, again planted before I bought my house, but don't shade my neighbor's yard due to their location and the direction of the sun. I think they're beautiful trees, but, I'd happily cut them down if they were bothering my neighbor or affecting his use of his property in any way.

This particular neighbor, though, has a liking for a row of very tall rhododendrons that are shading a good portion of my front yard. They are right on the property line (some seem to be on my side and others on his side), send out a bunch of roots onto my property, drop leaves that do not readily degrade, and they seem to kill most of the plants that I try to grow in that location. All parts of these plants are toxic. Their "gardener" comes weekly and blows the leaves that fall into their yard from those rhododendeons into our yard. We asked if they'd mind if we cut them down and replant with something else (not toxic, not quite so tall) and the guy threw a big fit about how much he loves them. Not neighborly, imo. One of the neighbors behind us (at a back corner) had a giant pepper tree that dropped a bunch of fowl-smelling stuff into two of his neighbors' yards, plus my yard. It shaded a big piece of my back yard, too. The tree died and I'm glad. It was an ugly, smelly, eyesore of a tree that was impacting my use of my property. The same guy has planted a row of some other sort of giant trees, along the back of his property line, that shade most of his neighbor's (the guy right behind him) entire back yard. The trees are ugly and have grown so large that the canopy is so high that it doesn't even provide privacy (which I'm sure is why they planted them in the first place). They are not appropriate trees to be planted in that location, due to their size. They could have their privacy with much shorter trees, and their back neighbor could have his sun back. The trees are incredibly ugly, too. They have no redeeming value.

I like trees. But, in a neighborhood, I like trees that are appropriately sized for their location and which do not impact neighbors. I do not think that large trees belong crammed into small places. I do not think that individual trees are more important than people and I will never agree that every tree is worth saving just because it's a tree. Some trees, imo, just need to meet a chainsaw and I think that this is especially true when they are affecting others and their ability to do what they want with their own property.

The neighbor with the hostas can plant their own tree, to shade their own plants, on their own property

How long do you imagine it takes a tree of enough size to produce a significant pool of shade to develop?

Not the point anyway, this was the point:

Does that neighbor now have a legitimate beef with you?

You're saying that if you take away their shade they can lump it, but if they have a tree that is shading your property it's an outrageous imposition on their part. How does that work, exactly? How is it that if what they do affects you that's unacceptable, but you affecting them is of no significant consequence?

They can put up shade cloth, or some other structure, until their tree grows large enough to shade their hostas. Huge trees aren't needed to grow hostas underneath; smaller trees, placed appropriately, do just fine.

Shade is often fairly easily created and you don't even need a tree to create shade. Sunlight only comes from the sun and, when it is taken from you (by a neighbor's tree), you cannot recreate it in your yard or in your home.

"Some trees, imo, just need to meet a chainsaw and I think that this is especially true when they are affecting others and their ability to do what they want with their own property."

And it is probably quite fortunate that most do not agree with you. Again, with very few exceptions, what one plants in their own garden and where they decide to site it is their choice.....as it should be. Just as you have little to no control over the size or style of architecture of the neighbor's new house, neither do you have the right to control what gets planted where in their garden.

And as to the toxicity of the rhododendrons, unless you plan to eat them, I fail to see how that plays into any kind of an equation. The vast majority of plants - including a good percentage of the vegetables I bet you like to grow and the fruit trees - are toxic to some degree or another. Yet oddly, this is seldom, ever, of any concern. That should be a non-issue!

Gardengal, most in this thread may not agree with me. But, most people, elsewhere, probably do.

Any child who comes into my front yard has to be monitored so they don't put any part of those rhododendrons into their mouth. The same is true for pets (dogs) These plants are very toxic. I feel that I have a definite legal liability so far as these plants and kids who might go by or wander into my front yard. If these plants catch on fire, they produce a toxic smoke. The sap is toxic too and it doesn't just cause problems if you eat it; it will cause skin reactions. Since my husband and I have to trim and maintain these plants and clean up after them, and because they are at least partly in our yard, that makes it very much my concern. It is definitely not a non-issue.

Yes, many plants are toxic to some degree. Rhododendrons are very toxic.

Speaking of toxic trees/plants, I think I'll cut down that big yew in my back yard this weekend.

veggieg - - - I wish you were my neighbor! nicely stated above and earlier. unnecessary large / tall trees in a residential neighborhood block needed light - and burn. I know.

Bottom line is that you can plant what you want in your own property. But if you don't give a darn about how it shades / affects your neighbors. You are NOT a good neighbor.

Holy cow. Is it slow on the garden side?

I loved the old neighborhoods with established trees I have lived in. The shade those trees provide is a boon in summer, especially when they are big enough to shade the house. They lower utility bills, help the environment, and make it so much more pleasant to walk or play outside. I have lived in places where cutting down certain old trees requires special permission, even if on private property.

I misspoke (miswrote), gardengal. I'm not sure why I was calling them rhododendrons. They are OLEANDERS, not rhododendeons. Oleanders...and they are very toxic. All parts of them are toxic. They are probably 15' high. They'd be just as wide if we didn't keep them trimmed.

Sometime, in the future, I'm going to get a survey of my property. If those oleanders are on my property...yep, you guessed it....they will meet my chainsaw.

crl, they are building homes less than 10 ft. apart now. the older 'hoods are the only place you can get that feeling... and I too love that. But - and this is a big but - in those types of neighborhoods, there is a huge amount of space between the homes. Here in my area, people wanted fast privacy and planted redwoods. lots of them. Fast forward and they are 150 ft tall and climbing. Redwoods have ruined Danville, they are not native, they require massive amounts of water, and the roots travel farther than their height. I know. I was one of those redwood crazies. ...until an arborist commented that I could not have landscaping if I had redwoods. He was right. They had already found my pipes (all of them) ... and ultimately my wallet. They cost me $50k of damage repair and removal fees. I clear-cut 30 and have never been happier - - I have sun! [I do enjoy all the redwood shredding/mulch though!] : - )

If you have lots of space you can pretty much not care about any of this big tree stuff; unless you chose to plant it on the very edges of your lot line. If you have neighbors, care about how your plantings affect them. Trees burn [napa-sonoma] so think about that too.

All i am really saying is that we really do need to think about what the landscape's effect is on your neighbors. Do the right thing,,, not what some after-all-else-has-failed law forces you to do.

VeggieG. Oleanders? I got those everywhere on one of my properties. Very drought tolerant, freeze tolerant, and they bloom all spring/summer. Love them.

However, my only issue is whomever planted them, planted them far too close together and planted the white (largest) variety. They take constant / annual trimming. And for that I want to get rid of them and plant more citrus. Whilst the neighbors do not want me to take them out - - - probably due to the privacy they give for their grandkids and pets. : - )

Yeah, molewhacker, they're oleanders. I live in the suburbs. They are much too large to be planted here. We have to keep trimming them, or they would be just as wide as they are tall. They're the white ones, mostly, though there is one pink one. It's a whole hedge and the plants are very close together. I think they're about 4 ft apart. They are highly toxic. I caught a kid who got a stick from them and was going to throw it for his dog. Nothing that I try to plant grows next to them, btw. They seem to just keep growing and growing taller. We can't trim the tops anymore, because they're so tall. They keep trying to grow wider, but we keep trimming. Constant trimming, like you said. I think they're a menace in my yard. I understand the appeal, because they're evergreen and flower a fair amount, but...the toxicity, the size and the fact that they're shading a good portion of my front yard....no, I don't like them at all. I'm in CA too.

I'm sure your neighbors like the privacy from them, but, I cannot imagine wanting then with kids and pets. Maybe you could offer to plant a citrus hedge! Citrus can make really pretty, evergreen, hedges.

I live in an area of small lots, small backyards, and minimal side yards. Most of us have backyard trees, but they tend to be on the small side.

The house two doors south of me has a redwood in the backyard and it's now massive. It completely engulfs the neighbor between us in shade during the winter and only in high summer do they get sun in the backyard. I love redwoods in the right setting--like a forest--but they have shallow root systems and cause a lot of damage if not risk of falling. In this case, the tree isn't my immediate problem, but I'd feel way different if I lived next door to them.

About 13 years ago I had a somewhat smaller redwood in my backyard that the previous owner had planted, so it was about 8-10 years old, but getting big, fast. I called the city to see if I needed a permit to remove it. They said oh, you bet you do, it could be a heritage redwood. I knew it wasn't. In addition to whatever it would cost to remove it, the permit at that time was about $150. I was newly widowed and at that time everything upset me. I called the tree guy and he came out and took it down in record time. I kept waiting for the city to burst through my gate and take me away in handcuffs.

I survived, and replaced the redwood with a flowering crabapple, a bit messy at times, but more suited to my small yard.

This thread has taken some interesting turns and everyone's got a different situation and/or outlook. I still think if both parties in the OP are trying to be reasonable and considerate, that good-neighbor relations are paramount. I hope this works out for both of you.

Linelle, ...love your comment(s)!

You are very unfamiliar with the older urban neighborhoods I have lived in.The houses were very close together. No tree that could provide any meaningful shade could possibly contained in one yard. Glad you haven't lived near me, you'd want every tree in the neighborhood cut down!

VeggieG, yes this will be up for discussion with the neighbors. They do have some positives: low maintenance except if you are trying to keep them a certain (small) size, deer won't eat them.. (I wish they would), and they block fire. They kept my neighbors houses from burning years ago. So things aren't at all that bad. But, as I said, I will be bringing it up with the neighbors. I have 23 citrus in the ground already on that property and would love to add 4-5 more. Now, if we were making progress stopping that ACP bug, I would have probably already ripped them out. !

The recent fires in CA have been terrible. I hope we won't have any more this year. I find the current heat wave concerning. Anything that can block fires (like your citrus) sounds like a really good idea to me. I look around where I live (on the edge of town, near open fields and orchards) and there are a bunch of dead trees (from the drought). I wish people would take them out and do something with all the dead weeds and bushes in their yards, because it really is a fire hazard. I also expect that many of the dead trees will fall this winter (including a really big one that one of my back yard neighbors has), and I hope none fall on people.

Maybe your neighbors will listen if you tell them how toxic those oleanders are...

Anyway, I will bow out now. I didn't intend to contribute to a thread hijacking! :-)

crl, I have been in and seen plenty of those beautiful 'hoods in the eastern US. And you are correct, I have formed a distaste for them... I would not be able to grow stuff. It was actually claustrophobic for me. Those trees that are too large and out of scale, impinge on everyone and it is not what I'd want. I understand that many love it and would not want it any other way. That is fine!

theclose: would love to see some pictures. There has been a lot of discussion and its difficult to imagine what your real situation is. However it works out, good luck!

Oleanders are a whole other can of worms. At my previous house I had one, and in a thread somewhere discussed how I was going to take it out because I was afraid that kids/pets might be poisoned. You woulda thunk I had brought up killing the Easter bunny from the reactions. All kinds of evidence was furnished that dogs leave it alone (but evidence was presented that horses sometimes die by eating the toxic dried leaves that get in grass).

I was uncomfortable with the notion of something that toxic right next to my house. So out it went, and murdering an oleander took a bunch of spraying Roundup herbicide on it every few days, they are pretty tough, but it croaked after a while.

There was no point in spraying every few days. Always read and follow label directions when mixing and applying pesticides.

Sorry, you are wrong. Spraying oleanders once is useless, that was tried the previous season. This worked.

I live in Santa Rosa, and I am grateful to have a house in a neighborhood that didn’t burn. Coffey Park is a mere 2 miles north of me. Everyone has been traumatized to some degree. Our long period of drought followed by last winter’s heavy rains, then a very hot, dry summer this year created a situation that the Diablo winds took advantage of. Sheer terror and endless heartache.

One good thing to come out of all this is a newfound appreciation of our community at large and neighbors close by. We gotta think beyond ourselves and help one another.

I did not read any of the responses, but given that it is your tree and it's so close, I'd pay for removal. I would not give it a second thought. It's the neighborly thing to do.

The replanting is totally on her.

Sorry, you are wrong

Next time read the label - or look elsewhere - and find out how the stuff works, before spraying "every few days". Or making any other version of an absurdly excessive amount of applications.

There is a world of difference between a single application and spraying over and over again, in quick succession. If you read the label it will tell you how many applications may be needed for shrubby material and when to make them. It sounds like you may not even have sprayed at a good time of the year for best results, since you apparently knew little else about what you were dealing with. Glyphosate may not even be the best chemical for what you were trying to do.

Good heavens. This thread went in about 5 different directions.

theclose, what did the last aborist say?

Hi all,

Thank you so much for the comments. I wasn't able to be here for today's meeting with a second arborist, but supposedly he said the same - that it's the cherry blossom tree (if that's what it is) due to proximity. The thing is neither of these "arborists" have done any digging - they are just assuming. I put arborists in quotes b/c while both companies have certified arborists, I don't think that is who is coming out. I am going to call one tomorrow and see what they say.

If I knew for certain it is this tree causing the problems, I wouldn't hesitate in taking down the tree and paying. It is just that no one knows for sure. I don't want to take down a perfectly good tree based on assumptions, and then years down the road there is more damage and another "let's take down this tree" discussion referring to yet another tree. I want a guarantee that by taking it down, this will be the end of it, but there is no guarantee of that.

I know the only way to figure this out is by someone coming out and digging.

To answer some questions - I didn't plant the tree. I do like trees in general and appreciate the beauty/shade/etc they provide. Am I attached to this tree - no. It won't impact much by being removed. I will post a pic.

Again, thank you all! I will definitely update when there is more info.

This is the situation. The tree in question is in the left corner (it looks like more than one tree but it isn’t). In the middle right of pic is my maple tree. In the same line behind my maple is her even larger tree (not sure if maple or what). You see the large crack in the side of her garage. Turns out (I asked her) that the sloped roof portion of the garage is an addition (an old one that predates her residency and she’s been there 50 years). Someone in my house probably planted the tree to cover up the sight of the garage, since before the addition, the garage ended at backyard neighbor’s fenceline. The crack covers the length of the addition. It is also very damp there’s bc her drain pipe empties right at base of tree (she is having this fixed to drain into her yard). I am sure there is a lot of water damage as well but she is focused on the tree.

I'm no expert, but that sure looks like water damage to me. Is that actually missing stucco at the base of the wall that looks like holes, or is that just dirt?

Raee that’s dirt/moss/mold.

I agree that removing a tree for no reason would be a shame. Getting someone to inspect the garage to see if the roots of your tree are pushing up the foundation of the garage is a good idea. I would also look to see if there is a foundation. It looks like the wall of the garage is on grade. Water from the drain pipe could have caused the damage. The tree may be vindicated. I don't mean to stir the pot, but even though the garage has been in on the property line for 50 years, would town/county set back regulations permit it to remain? My neighbor had to relocate a storage structure on his property to conform to the regulations. No, I didn't complain about the location of the shed. I think he realized it and took it upon himself to move it.

Ok, looks like the big tree is a silver maple, notorious for aggressive roots. Your tree is puny. Should not be difficult to take down. Plant a new one closer to your house, in five years you won't know the difference. Plant three flowering trees if you want, just keep them well away (10 feet or more) from the property line. End of story with your neighbor.

I'm no expert, but that sure looks like water damage to me. My thought exactly. If she's got drainage problems, that seems to be the more likely cause.

Root cracks to foundations tend to be subgrade-that crack is pretty high up to be caused by roots. Plus it looks like it's bowing outward-I wonder if there is water damage inside the garage?

Before I saw the photo I thought you should probably hire an engineer to look into this-to rule out some other issues, but looking at the photo and that she agrees to pay toward cutting it down, I'd do that instead. I can't imagine that it'd cost you $500 for sod, much less grass seed and a few shrubs to replace the tree. I think that the tree is too close to her structure, but I don't think it's the cause of the crack.

My next door neighbor has (had) a lot of large trees on his property-one giant maple was at least 4 feet diameter and hung out over our deck. He also had some 80 foot poplars-some were dead, that fell and had to be removed. We had some 60 foot cherry trees cut down on our property line-they were all planted before the properties had been subdivided, but grew up along the property lines.

This past winter his giant maple broke down the center and part fell and just missed the neighbor behind us house. It literally grazed the side of their house. I told him that the remainder of the tree needed to come out because it would fall and hit our house but he refused to do anything about it. I called our local government, no tree ordinances, not even hazard trees! I called the fire marshall, I called our insurance company and was advised to write him a certified letter notifying him of our intention to file suit to have the tree removed if he didn't act within 30 days. Our insurance would not pay out on a claim if he knowingly left the remainder of the tree uncut.

He evenutally had that huge branch that hung out over our house cut down (it was at least 40 feet long) and the remainder of the snags from the other limb that had broken off, but he left the stump-about 10 feet tall, with one limb that hangs out over his garage. The tree is rotten-all his trees are over 70 years old and at the end of their lives, but he refuses to cut them out. We cut down an old maple from our front yard that was rotting in the center-just two weeks before a windstorm that broke a large limb off a sweet gum tree in our front yard. We have planted new, replacement trees, in more appropriate spots and more appropriate for the size of our lot.

Just thought I'd update. Thank you for all your input. After much discussion, knowing that I was not responsible for removal unless it was the roots causing the issue, I discussed several options with the neighbor - 1. she can proceed immediately and remove tree but all equipment has to go through her yard (I didn't want the heavy equipment ruining my raised bluestone patio or newly seeded front lawn); 2. we get an arborist to confirm if the roots are causing damage - if it is the tree, I will bear the cost of tree removal; 3. she trims the roots and tree to her property line. I thought all the options were fair. Since she was in such a rush b/c Thanksgiving is coming (!?), she decided to trim the tree. The tree now looks awful from her side but I can't tell from my side, other than it being less dense. She had them literally lop off half the tree. Not sure if this is the end of the story but for now, at least, it is.