Blevins v. Metzgar, N16C-06-061 EMD

Plaintiffs Dennis and Diane Blevins own a 2.12-acre residential parcel in Townsend, DE; neighbors Hope and Robert Metzgar own an adjacent ~6.8-acre parcel whose house sits ~10 feet from the shared boundary.
Between April 22 and May 25, 2015, the Blevins allege the Metzgars entered their property, cut down roughly 40 feet of trees/vegetation, and kept the timber.
The Metzgars admit cutting and removing vegetation but say they believed the trees were on their land, that the removed vegetation was dead or dangerous, and that removal benefited the Blevins’ lot.
Blevins sued (Civ. No. N16C-06-061 EMD) for Timber Trespass (25 Del. C. §1401), Trespass to Chattels, and Conversion; Metzgars counterclaimed for Unjust Enrichment, Malicious Prosecution/Bad Faith, and Abuse of Process.
Plaintiffs’ damages are based on an arborist’s “restoration plan” estimating replacement/restoration costs of $33,241; defendants challenge the valuation method and area measurement.
On summary judgment, the court denied the Metzgars’ motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on damages, area disturbed, and whether cut timber became personal property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether damages for timber trespass may be awarded based on replacement/restoration cost	Blevins: expert’s "restoration plan" = replacement cost; yields specific damages figure	Metzgars: expert doesn’t use accepted replacement or before-and-after valuation; damages not proven	Denied summary judgment — replacement/restoration valuation was sufficient to create factual dispute on damages
Whether plaintiffs identified the area denuded with sufficient specificity for damages	Blevins: expert and plaintiffs provided reasonable area estimates for purposes of damages	Metzgars: area not precisely identified; damages therefore speculative	Denied summary judgment — estimates create genuine factual dispute; exact measurement not required at summary stage
Whether trespass to chattels and conversion claims are viable where trees were originally real property	Blevins: once cut, trees become personalty and may be subject of conversion/trespass to chattels	Metzgars: trees are real property, so conversion/trespass to chattels inapplicable	Denied summary judgment — longstanding rule: severed timber becomes personal property; claims may proceed

Merrill v. Crothall-American Inc., 606 A.2d 96 (Del. 1992) (summary judgment standard and courts view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467 (Del. 1962) (summary judgment not proper when further factual inquiry is needed)
Farny v. Bestfield Builders, Inc., 391 A.2d 212 (Del. Super. 1978) (damages measure and replacement cost guidance for trees with aesthetic/personal value)
Brzoska v. Olsen, 668 A.2d 1355 (Del. 1995) (burden-shifting framework on summary judgment)
Schulenberg v. Harriman, 88 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1874) (timber, when severed, becomes personalty and remains owner’s personal property subject to remedies for wrongful removal)