What began as a straightforward neighborhood disagreement in February 2022 evolved into a complex, 12-day jury trial — and ultimately, a major victory for our client and for our litigation team, led by attorneys Tony Rafel and Tim Feth.
This case centered around neighbors living directly across the street from one another in a private community governed by shared covenants. One of those covenants required that homeowners ensure their trees do not unreasonably obstruct a neighbor’s view. What should have been a simple, cooperative solution quickly escalated when the plaintiffs demanded the removal of all four of our clients’ mature trees.
Our client, the defendants, immediately took a reasonable approach: they agreed to trim and maintain the trees to ensure views were preserved. But the plaintiffs insisted that nothing short of full removal would do.
There was a major problem with that demand.
Our clients’ homes sit along a bluff with a history of landslides, where those four trees serve a critical safety function. Removing them would increase the risk of future landslides by eliminating root systems that stabilize the soil and absorb excess water. In other words, complying with the plaintiff’s demand would have created significant and unnecessary danger.
Over the course of 12 days, our legal team presented testimony from multiple experts and witnesses who explained:
- The trees did not meaningfully obstruct the plaintiff’s view.
- Trimming them, as our client had already done and agreed to continue doing, was a reasonable and responsible solution.
- Full removal would jeopardize the slope’s stability, posing real safety risks.
After hearing all evidence, the jury returned a decisive verdict in favor of the defendants. They agreed that the trees did not unreasonably obstruct the plaintiffs’ views and that our clients’ proposed trimming plan fully satisfied the covenant requirements.
This case was never truly about defining “unreasonable obstruction.”
It was about reasonableness itself when caring for their property under shared community rules.
The jury recognized that our clients acted responsibly, safely, and within the terms of the covenant.
This win highlights how important it is for communities and courts to interpret covenants with a balanced, practical perspective. It reinforces that:
- Property maintenance obligations must be reasonable.
- Safety considerations matter just as much as aesthetic ones.
- Neighbors must act in good faith when resolving disputes.
Thanks to the dedication of Tony and Tim, our clients can now move forward without the threat of unnecessary tree removal or slope instability.