Alvarez v. Katz and Berger, 124 A.3d 839

Neighbors: Alvarezes own lot at 52 Central Ave; Berger and Katz own adjoining lot at 54 Central Ave in South Burlington. A ~65-foot, ~65-year-old maple stands entirely on the Alvarez property about 2 feet from the property line.
Approximately half of the tree’s branches and roots encroach onto Berger/Katz’s property; some roots extend beneath their existing deck.
Berger and Katz obtained permits to build a two‑story addition that would require cutting encroaching roots and branches—potentially up to ~50% of the tree’s roots/branches.
The Alvarezes obtained a temporary, then permanent injunction preventing trimming beyond 25% of the tree, based on the trial court’s application of an "urban‑tree rule" that forbade cutting that would likely kill the tree.
Berger and Katz appealed; the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether an adjoining landowner may remove encroaching roots/branches even if the cutting likely harms or kills the tree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Alvarez)	Defendant's Argument (Berger/Katz)	Held
Right to cut encroaching branches/roots	Common law should be limited where cutting would destroy the tree; trial court’s urban‑tree rule applies	Owner of encroached land has absolute right to remove encroaching parts to the property line, regardless of effect on tree	Vermont reaffirms long‑standing rule: adjoining owner may cut encroachments to the property line without regard to resulting harm to the tree; injunction vacated
Whether the tree is a "line tree" (shared ownership)	Tree is effectively on the boundary; thus special protections apply	Tree trunk is entirely on Alvarez property, so it is not a line tree and belongs solely to Alvarezes	Court: property line does not pass through trunk; not a line tree; Cobb governs
Applicability of 13 V.S.A. § 3606 (timber statute)	Statute prohibits "destroying" the tree and creates statutory remedy	Statute is cumulative and based on trespass; no trespass alleged, so it does not bar common‑law self‑help	Court: statute does not preclude Berger/Katz’s common‑law remedy; not a bar here
Availability of injunctive relief vs. self‑help	Irreparable harm to tree and difficulty of replacement justify injunction	Damages remedy and common‑law self‑help (cutting to property line) are sufficient; injunction unnecessary	Court did not reach damages/irreparable‑harm fully because it resolved right to cut; injunction reversed

Cobb v. W. Union Tel. Co., 90 Vt. 342, 98 A. 758 (Vt. 1916) (establishes that a tree wholly on one owner’s land may have its overhanging parts cut off by the adjoining owner at the division line)
Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115 (Vt. 1865) (line trees whose trunks straddle the boundary are owned as tenants in common and cannot be cut to destroy the other’s share)
Michalson v. Nutting, 175 N.E. 490 (Mass. 1931) (common‑law principle: owner may plant trees though shade/encroachment causes loss without action; neighbor’s remedy is to cut intruding parts)
Vaillancourt v. Dutton, 115 Vt. 36, 50 A.2d 762 (Vt. 1947) (timber statute is cumulative and rooted in trespass principles)