“Height limit for vegetation?”
“No.”
“Permit?”
“Not for plantings.”
“If all of that checks out, it is your property.”
“I know.”
“What mature height?”
“Thirty to forty feet.”
Thomas exhaled.
“You're an extremely patient man.”
“I work in logistics.”
I declined the settlement.
The case proceeded.
Bench trial scheduled for late September.
In the weeks before trial, Pressman fought the contractor statement.
Tried to limit replacement-value damages.
Thomas responded.
The judge allowed relevant evidence subject to trial foundations.
Then came the hearing.
County courthouse.
Small courtroom.
Wood benches.
No television drama.
No shouting.
The judge had a stack of files and very little patience for repetition.
Thomas began with ownership.
Deed.
Survey.
Boundary.
Then before photographs.
After photographs.
Arborist.
Martin Hendricks testified.
Species.
Age.
Health.
Valuation methodology.
No emergency-removal justification.
Pressman cross-examined.
Suggested replacement cost was excessive because buying seventy-year-old trees was unrealistic.
Martin agreed that exact replacement was impossible.
That, he explained, was precisely why professional landscape valuation models existed.
He described regional nursery stock.
Installation.
Establishment.
Size adjustment.
Species.
Condition.
Location.
The judge asked:
“Were these timber-production trees?”
“No.”
“Primary function?”
“Landscape, natural woodland edge, screening, ecological and aesthetic contribution.”
“Healthy?”
“Based on the available evidence, yes.”
Then Matt Cole testified.
That was difficult for Gary.
Matt said Gary pointed to the trees.
Said they belonged to him.
Said the fence did not represent the true boundary.
Authorized removal.
Pressman tried to suggest Matt should have independently confirmed title.
Matt agreed he could have.
That did not help Gary.
It meant multiple people had acted without confirming the land.
Then Gary took the stand.
Pressman guided him carefully.
Lake view.
Branch concerns.
Belief about boundary.
Good faith.
Intent to improve his own property.
Then Thomas stood.
“Mr. Warner, before cutting the trees, did you commission a survey?”
“No.”
“Did you review a recorded survey?”
“No.”
“Did you obtain written permission from Mr. Mercer?”
“No.”
“Did you speak to him after October about the trees?”
“No.”
Thomas displayed the text.
“You wrote that you wanted to discuss vegetation along the shared boundary.”
“Yes.”
“He answered?”
“Yes.”
“He suggested spring?”
“Yes.”
“You did not wait for spring.”
“No.”
“You did not follow up.”
“No.”
“You hired a crew instead.”
“Yes.”
“Did you tell that crew the trees were yours?”
Gary paused.
“I told them I believed they were on my side.”
Matt’s statement said more than that.
Thomas did not argue.
He simply asked:
“Did you possess any document confirming that belief?”
“No.”
“Did you know the exact boundary was uncertain when you authorized removal?”
Gary hesitated.
“Yes.”
Thomas stopped.
Sometimes one answer is enough.
Closing arguments came later.
Then the judge ruled.
The court found the eleven trees were on my parcel.