“Would you tell him what you just told me?”
Matt thought.
“Yes.”
Why?
Because suddenly he understood he could be included in the lawsuit.
Cooperation mattered.
Thomas prepared a witness statement.
Matt signed.
It said Gary Warner had personally identified the eleven trees for removal and represented that the trees were on property he owned or controlled.
The boundary-confusion defense weakened significantly.
Then I found the October text.
Vegetation along shared boundary.
Nothing urgent.
Let's talk.
My response:
Spring.
That mattered for a simple reason.
Gary knew how to reach me.
He knew the vegetation was a subject requiring discussion.
Then he proceeded without discussion.
I sent screenshots to Thomas.
His response:
Useful.
Keep original phone.
Do not delete thread.
Then came the survey.
Hammond Land Surveying.
Two licensed surveyors.
Modern GPS plus conventional checks.
They found monuments.
Reestablished corners.
Located eastern boundary.
Mapped every stump.
When the final drawing came back, even I was surprised.
Nearest stump:
6.1 feet inside my parcel.
Farthest:
22.4 feet.
Not one within three feet of the line.
Not ambiguous.
Not straddling.
Not reasonable mistake territory unless somebody had refused to check.
Thomas sent the survey to Pressman.
The cover email contained one sentence:
The asserted boundary ambiguity is not supported by the licensed survey.
Pressman did not answer for thirteen days.
The Warners changed.
No waves.
Gary used a different route.
Sandra looked away when our cars passed.
I did not enjoy it.
Conflict is tiring even when you believe you are right.
Especially with neighbors.
They do not disappear when legal correspondence ends.
You still see their porch lights.
Their mailbox.
Their dog.
Their car.
A lawsuit against someone two hundred feet away becomes part of the landscape.
Then Pressman offered $5,000.
Rejected.
$7,500.
Rejected.
He emphasized litigation costs.
Uncertainty.
Neighbor relations.
I understood.
But $7,500 against a professional replacement-value assessment above $41,000 and potential statutory enhancement was not serious.
Thomas filed.
County civil court.
Claims included timber trespass and related property damages based on the facts and state law applicable to the case.
I am simplifying the pleading.
Real complaints are less dramatic than stories.
Paragraphs.
Counts.
Exhibits.
Service.
Responses.
Gary called me the afternoon he was served.
I did not answer.
Voicemail:
“Daniel, I really don't understand why you're escalating this. We were close to resolving things. This is going to get expensive for everyone. I hope you'll reconsider before it gets out of hand.”
I saved it.
Thomas received a copy.
Then the drainage complaint arrived.
County Land Use Department.
Anonymous complaint alleging modifications to my property were directing runoff toward the Warner parcel.
For the first time, I laughed.
Not because it was funny.
Because the timing was impossible to ignore.
Thomas said:
“Do not accuse them.”
“Cooperate.”
I did.
Inspector came.
Walked property.
Photographed stump zone.
Reviewed slope.
Asked:
“Any excavation here?”
“No.”
“Stumps removed?”
“Trees cut.”
“Roots still in ground?”
“Yes.”
He examined.
Two weeks later:
No violation.
Existing disturbance consistent with tree removal.
Potential localized drainage changes more plausibly associated with removal/root disturbance than any action by owner.
Public document.
Added to case file.