“Yes.”
“What do you do?”
“Supply-chain consulting.”
“That explains the tabs.”
He continued.
Survey.
Photos.
Dale’s note.
Arborist.
Gary conversation summary.
Sandra offer.
Then:
“You need a current boundary survey.”
“Already arranging it.”
“Good.”
He explained the legal framework carefully.
He did not promise a number.
Good lawyers rarely do.
He said state law provided enhanced damages under certain timber-trespass circumstances if the removal was found willful rather than an innocent mistake.
Potential double damages.
Maybe more under limited factual circumstances, though he did not recommend assuming that.
He distinguished timber value from replacement value.
Said damages would depend on what measure the court accepted.
He looked at the photographs.
“These were not commercial timber trees.”
“No.”
“They served landscape, privacy, aesthetic functions.”
“Yes.”
“That supports replacement-value arguments.”
Then he pointed at Gary’s statement.
“He told you he knew the line wasn't confirmed.”
“Yes.”
“If accurate, that hurts a mistake defense.”
Thomas recommended a formal demand.
Not maximum theoretical exposure.
A reasonable settlement tied to documented replacement loss and related costs.
Demand:
$44,000.
Fourteen days.
Attorney letterhead.
Certified mail.
No insults.
No threat to ruin them.
Statement of facts.
Supporting documentation available.
I authorized it.
On day twelve, Gary and Sandra retained their own attorney.
Nathan Pressman.
City lawyer.
General civil litigation.
He called Thomas.
Initial defense:
Good-faith mistake.
Boundary ambiguity.
Trees believed to be on shared line.
Minor compensation appropriate.
Thomas responded.
Survey copy.
GIS.
Dale statement.
Arborist.
Gary’s admission that he never confirmed the line.
Pressman went quiet.
During that silence, I found the logging crew.
That took effort.
No company sign had been left.
No invoice.
Gary certainly did not volunteer the name.
I asked around.
Local equipment-rental company recognized my description of the trailer.
Two brothers.
Matt and Bryan Cole.
Small tree and timber operation.
I drove to Matt’s property.
Did not threaten.
Did not accuse.
I said:
“You cut eleven trees on my property.”
Matt’s face changed.
“Warner job?”
“Yes.”
He swore softly.
“I asked him.”
“What?”
“I asked whether they were his.”
“What did he say?”
“He said yes.”
“Exactly?”
Matt thought.
“He pointed and said everything he marked was his property.”
“Did he mark them?”
“Orange tape.”
That was new.
I had not seen tape after the removal.
Probably removed with logs.
“Did you ask about the fence?”
“Yes.”
“He said old fence wasn't the exact line.”
I felt my anger return.
“Did he show a survey?”
“No.”
“You entered from which side?”
“Their property.”
“Crossed the fence?”
“There was a low section near the lake road.”
“Who told you that was okay?”
“Gary.”
Matt looked sick.
“If I'd known…”
“I know.”
“I’m not here asking you to confess to anything.”
“My attorney may contact you.”