Public record · updated as cases resolve

Recent tree law verdicts and settlements.

What courts, juries, and insurers are actually paying when someone cuts, poisons, or clears trees they don't own. Every entry links to its public source. Amounts are as reported; these are not TreeLawLeads cases.

$7.9Mreported across 16 resolved matters
$2.5Mlargest single resolution listed
11states represented
2–3×statutory multiplier in most states
$933,000
VERDICT

Jury awards $933,000 for nine mature trees cut while the owner was away

Bowie, Prince George's County, MD · · 9 mature trees, many over 30 in. diameter

A neighbor hired a tree service to remove nine large trees on the plaintiff's lot while she was out of town, leaving only a note in her mailbox. The neighbor settled before trial for $500,000 through his insurer; the jury then found the tree company liable for trespass and negligence, awarding $783,000 to restore the property (mature replacements run roughly $90,000 per tree) plus $150,000 in noneconomic damages. The award against the company was later reduced to $433,000 to account for the neighbor's settlement. Arborist Lew Bloch called it the largest tree-destruction verdict in Maryland history.

Defendant
Neighbor + Unlimbited Tree Service
Law
Trespass and negligence (Maryland)
largest in state historytree service liablerestoration cost
$46,000
COURT RULING

Storms v. Geraghty: four trees over a disputed line, $40,000 punitive plus restoration under RPAPL 861

Columbia County (Appellate Division, Third Dept.), NY · · 4 trees plus vegetation removed after a boundary dispute

Months after buying the adjoining parcel and arguing about where the line ran, the new owner and a companion crossed it and removed four trees and vegetation. The jury found the conduct wanton, reckless or malicious, awarded $40,000 in punitive damages against the cutter, and $3,000 against each defendant under RPAPL 861 to cover restoration; the court also quieted title to the disputed strip in the plaintiff's favor. Affirmed on appeal in May 2026. Worth noting for intake: even a four-tree case with thin compensatory proof produced a five-figure punitive award once the record showed the defendants knew the line was contested.

Defendant
New neighboring owner + the person he brought to cut
Law
RPAPL § 861; trespass; quiet title
punitive damagesboundary disputesmall tree count
$915,135
FINE / PENALTY

Oakland fines landowners $915,135 for cutting 38 protected trees, some in a neighbor's yard

Oakland hills, Alameda County, CA · · 38 protected trees incl. mature coast live oaks

The City Council voted 5–3 to impose a record fine on a couple who removed 38 trees from a hillside lot behind the Claremont Hotel in 2021–22 after repeated warnings that permits were required. City staff valued each tree individually, from a $750 plum to a $95,000 mature coast live oak, and the total came to nearly $1 million. Several of the felled trees stood in a neighbor's yard and one on public land; the neighbors have filed their own suit. A clean illustration of how per-tree appraisal drives the number.

Defendant
Hillside lot owners
Law
Oakland Protected Trees Ordinance; neighbors suing separately
As reported by
The Oaklandside ↗
municipal penaltyprotected treesper-tree valuation
$3,000 fine
FINE / PENALTY

Rockport, Maine: $3,000 pesticide fine for poisoning a 95-year-old neighbor's harbor-view trees

Rockport, Knox County, ME · · Multiple trees blocking a harbor view, killed with imazapic and triclopyr

A second Maine harbor-view poisoning, two years after Camden. The state pesticides board approved a consent agreement with a $3,000 fine; the neighbor acknowledged a court could find a violation but did not admit guilt, and the agreement expressly leaves criminal charges and civil suits open. The victim's family called the fine inadequate. Listed mainly as a marker: after Camden, Maine raised the ceiling for improper pesticide use to $50,000 (and $75,000 for a repeat), so the regulatory piece is now only the floor of a claimant's recovery.

Defendant
Seasonal neighbor (Brooklyn resident)
Law
Maine Board of Pesticides Control consent agreement; civil claims not precluded
As reported by
Bangor Daily News ↗
herbicideview clearingcivil claim still open
$145,047
COURT RULING

NY high court: RPAPL 861 treble damages are punitive, so towns are exempt; $145,047 award reversed

Town of Lodi, Seneca County, NY · · 55 trees cut or trimmed along a town road

A town-hired crew cut or trimmed 55 trees on the Rosbaughs' land in 2010. An arbitrator found a stumpage value of $48,349 and trebled it to $145,047 under RPAPL 861, and the lower courts confirmed. In March 2025 the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute's treble multiplier is punitive in nature and therefore cannot be assessed against a municipality. Compensatory elements (remediation cost, value of the wood) survive. Takeaway for intake: the 3× multiplier is strongest against private defendants — neighbors, developers, contractors, loggers — not towns.

Defendant
Town of Lodi (via tree-service contractor)
Law
RPAPL § 861 (treble damages)
treble damagesmunicipal defendantpractice note
~$750K sought
PENDING

Truro, MA: 25 trees felled for a neighbor's bay view; ~$750,000 treble claim filed

Truro, Barnstable County (Barnstable Superior Court), MA · · 25 mature trees felled, 3 more topped

The owners of a 1.5-acre rental-cottage property returned in May 2024 to find 25 healthy trees down and others topped, opening a water view for a house up the hill. Their suit alleges the neighbor arranged it with their own property manager while they were away. Replacement cost is pleaded at $243,200, trebled under the Massachusetts statute to roughly $750,000. The defendant's liability carrier has assigned defense counsel. Pending; listed for the fact pattern (absentee owner, insider access, view motive) that recurs in the largest cases on this page.

Defendant
Nearby homeowner + the plaintiffs' own property manager
Law
M.G.L. c. 242 § 7 (three times the value)
pendingview clearingtreble damagesinsurer defending
$600K claimed
SETTLEMENT

Actor William H. Macy settles $600,000 suit over neighbor's destroyed pine trees

Los Angeles County, CA · · Several decades-old mature pines and other vegetation

Neighbor Pierce Brown alleged Macy knowingly directed landscapers to destroy and remove mature pines and vegetation on Brown's side of the line, and sued for $600,000 in Los Angeles Superior Court. The case was dismissed in February 2025 after a settlement whose terms are confidential. Counted here at the claimed amount; the actual payment was not disclosed.

Defendant
Neighboring homeowner (via landscapers)
Law
Trespass; Cal. Civ. Code § 3346 exposure
As reported by
People / AOL ↗
confidential termslandscaper acting for owner
$13K fine + confidential settlement
FINE / PENALTY

Kinnelon, NJ: 32 of a neighbor's conifers cut for a view; $13,000 fine plus an undisclosed insurer settlement

Kinnelon, Morris County, NJ · · 32 conifers, 20 to 150 years old

The case that went national in 2023: a homeowner had 32 mature conifers on the lot next door cut to open his backyard view. He pleaded guilty to the borough's tree ordinance and was fined $13,000; prosecutors put restoration at more than $1 million. The neighbor's civil claim was settled by the cutter's insurance company for an undisclosed amount, and he sold the property for $1.8 million. The public number understates the outcome; the private one was paid by a carrier.

Defendant
Neighboring homeowner (and his insurer)
Law
Municipal tree ordinance; civil trespass claim settled
view clearinginsurer paidrestoration est. $1M+
$7M+ sought
PENDING

King County sues Issaquah homeowners for $7M+ after 142 park trees were cut for views

Grand Ridge Park, Issaquah, King County, WA · · 142 trees cut, topped, split or debarked

A trail camera caught a tree sliding down a hillside, which led county parks staff to a cleared swath of 142 trees inside a protected natural area behind a row of homes. The county filed a civil suit seeking more than $7 million plus civil penalties, including the increase in home values from the improved view, and asked for treble damages under Washington's timber trespass statute. One defendant was later dismissed. Pending; listed for the fact pattern and the damages theory, not as a recovery.

Defendant
Three adjoining property owners + contractors
Law
RCW 64.12.030 treble damages sought; county code penalties
As reported by
KIRO 7 ↗
pendingpublic landview clearingtrail camera evidence
$15,000 fine
FINE / PENALTY

Kinnelon, NJ: 3½ acres and ~363 trees cleared behind a home; $15,000 fine and a 3-for-1 replanting order

Kinnelon, Morris County, NJ · · ~363 trees on 3½ acres, part of it a water company's reservoir land

Reported to the borough only after the Haber case drew attention, this clearing ran onto land owned by the water company above the reservoir that serves about 8,000 residents. The owner pleaded guilty and was fined $15,000, with an order to plant three DEP-approved trees for each one felled; a restitution hearing on the water company's losses was still ahead. Another reminder that the ordinance fine is rarely the real exposure.

Defendant
Homeowner
Law
Municipal tree ordinance; restitution hearing to follow
municipal penaltyreplanting orderreservoir land
$1.7M+
SETTLEMENT

Missouri couple pays $1.7M+ after poisoning a neighbor's oaks for a harbor view

Camden, Knox County, ME · · Mature waterfront oaks, killed with tebuthiuron herbicide

The seasonal neighbors applied tebuthiuron near oaks on the late L.L. Bean president's widow's shoreline lot; the chemical also leached into a public park and beach. As reported, the total exceeded $1.7 million: more than $1.5 million to the property owner in a May 2023 settlement, a $180,000 consent agreement with the town plus $30,000 for environmental testing, and a $4,500 state pesticide fine, with ongoing remediation exposure. Shows that willful destruction of a handful of trees can price like a commercial claim once soil remediation enters.

Defendant
Neighboring homeowners
Law
Private settlement; Maine pesticide-control violation; town consent agreement
As reported by
NPR / WGME ↗
herbicideview clearingmulti-party penalties
$125,000
SETTLEMENT

Seattle homeowner and landscaper pay $125,000 for cutting park trees to improve a view

Mt. Baker neighborhood, Seattle, King County, WA · · Multiple trees on a steep slope in Mt. Claire Park (environmentally critical area)

The city sued a homeowner and the landscaping company he hired after trees and recent restoration plantings in a public park below his house were cut back to open the view. Both settled for $125,000. Seattle has used the same playbook repeatedly ($440,000 in 2017 and $360,000 in 2018 for the West Seattle greenbelt), and it names the contractor every time; the crew's insurer is usually the deeper pocket.

Defendant
Homeowner + landscaping contractor
Law
Timber trespass; Seattle tree-protection and critical-areas codes
As reported by
MyNorthwest ↗
public landview clearingcontractor named
$100,000
SETTLEMENT

$100,000 pre-suit settlement for a single large oak cut by a corporate trespasser

DeKalb County, GA · · One large oak

One oak, one arborist report, one demand: counsel negotiated a $100,000 recovery from the corporate defendants' insurance carriers before filing suit, leaning on Georgia's statute, which allows three times the standing value of the tree plus attorney's fees and reforestation costs, with punitive exposure on top. A benchmark for what the smallest bracket can be worth when the statute and the appraisal are both in hand.

Defendant
Corporate defendants (via insurers)
Law
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-50 (treble value, fees, reforestation)
single treepre-suitinsurer paid
$2.5M
SETTLEMENT

$2.5 million settlement for 136 trees cleared to open a Menemsha harbor view

Chilmark, Martha's Vineyard, Dukes County, MA · · 136 beech, oak and locust, some 100 ft tall

An associate staying at the defendants' inn cleared a wide strip of the abutting owner's woodland in 2019 to improve views of Menemsha harbor and pond. The owner's restoration estimate was $3.6 million. Weeks before a June jury trial, the parties settled for $2.5 million: $1 million from the cutter's insurer and $1.5 million from the inn owners' company. Massachusetts' tree-cutting statute allows treble damages for willful cutting, which framed the exposure.

Defendant
Inn owners' company + the associate who cut
Law
Trespass; M.G.L. c. 242 § 7 exposure (treble)
As reported by
Vineyard Gazette ↗
view clearinginsurer + owner paidrestoration estimate $3.6M
$440,000
SETTLEMENT

West Seattle greenbelt: two couples pay $440,000 for 66 trees cut on a public slope

West Seattle, King County, WA · · 66 trees (about 150 across both suits)

Roughly 150 trees were cut on a steep city-owned greenbelt below a row of homes to open views. The first two households settled for $440,000; a second suit against the remaining defendants resolved the following year for $360,000. The city pleaded the timber-trespass statute alongside code violations, and the settlement funded slope remediation. The public-land version of the view-clearing case, priced at roughly $6,700 per tree before any multiplier.

Defendant
Two neighboring couples who hired the cutting
Law
RCW 64.12.030 timber trespass; trespass; negligence; critical-areas and parks code
As reported by
City of Seattle ↗
public landview clearingtreble damages pleaded
$80,000+
COURT RULING

Indiana: logger who crossed a marked line pays $80,000+ for three dozen hardwoods, affirmed on appeal

Morgan County (Indiana Court of Appeals), IN · · More than three dozen hardwood trees on 15 wooded acres

The owners had walked the logger to the metal boundary posts before the neighbor's harvest began; he crossed them anyway and kept cutting after being caught. The trial court awarded both the timber's value and the cost to remediate the damaged woodland, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the logger responsible for his crews under the non-delegable duty in the Timber Buyers Act. The court declined treble damages, so the $80,000 is single value plus cleanup. Useful benchmark for rural logging-trespass files.

Defendant
Logging contractor hired by the neighbor
Law
Indiana Timber Buyers Act, I.C. 25-36-5; non-delegable duty
timber theftlogger liabletimber value + remediation
$107,256
COURT RULING

Kallis v. Sones: one boundary-line Aleppo pine, $53,628 doubled to $107,256

Los Angeles County (Court of Appeal), CA · · One 70-ft Aleppo pine straddling the property line

The neighbors cut down a shared boundary pine they believed was theirs and a hazard. Because the cutting was not willful, treble and punitive damages were off the table, but the trial court still valued the tree at $53,628 on arborist testimony and doubled it under § 3346. The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting the argument that damages should be pro-rated by how much trunk sat on each side. Still the go-to California citation for what a single mature tree is worth.

Defendant
Neighboring homeowners
Law
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 834, 3346(a) (double damages)
As reported by
FindLaw (opinion) ↗
landmarkboundary treedouble damagessingle tree
$150,000
COURT RULING

Caciopoli v. Lebowitz: $150,000 for trees cut by a neighbor's tree service, measured by lost property value

Guilford, New Haven County (Connecticut Supreme Court), CT · · A wooded buffer between two homes, including mature trees

The defendant's tree service cleared a wooded strip that turned out to be on the plaintiff's side of the line. Because the cutting was a mistake, the statute's treble multiplier would have applied only to timber value; the plaintiff instead proved that his lot lost $150,000 in market value, and the Supreme Court held that § 52-560 does not displace that common-law measure. The case is why Connecticut claimants get to choose between three times the timber value and the drop in what their property is worth.

Defendant
Neighbor who hired a tree service believing the trees were his
Law
C.G.S. § 52-560; common-law trespass (diminution in value)
As reported by
FindLaw (opinion) ↗
landmarkdiminution in valuemistaken boundary
$2.2M → $186K
COURT RULING

Blust v. Lamar Advertising: billboard crew clears 34 trees; $2.2M punitive verdict, $66,000 after two appeals

Montgomery County (Ohio Court of Appeals), OH · · 34 wild-growing trees on a farm, 17 over 3 in. diameter

To clear sight lines to a new billboard, the company's agent had 34 trees removed from the neighboring farm despite repeated warnings. The jury gave $32,000 compensatory and $2,245,105 punitive; the trial judge cut the punitive award to $550,000, the 2004 appeal sent it back as still disproportionate, and on remand it landed at $66,000 plus $88,250 in attorney fees, restored in 2009. Final recovery about $186,000 on $32,000 of tree value. The cautionary half of the punitive-damages story: juries punish corporate defendants, appellate courts trim it, and fee-shifting is what makes the case pay.

Defendant
Billboard company's leasing agent + tree service
Law
Trespass; punitive damages; attorney fees
punitive damagescorporate defendantignored warnings

Disclaimer. TreeLawLeads was not involved in any matter listed and has no affiliation with the parties, counsel, or publications cited. Compiled from news reports, court opinions, and counsel announcements; figures are as reported by the linked source and may include settlements whose full terms are confidential, penalties assessed by governments, and claims still pending. None of these are TreeLawLeads matters. Not legal advice, and not a prediction of what any other case is worth; verify the controlling statute and current status before relying on any entry. Know of a resolution we're missing? Send us the source.

What these numbers have in common

Every large result above rests on the same three things we screen for before a case reaches a firm: a survey or record that fixes ownership, an arborist's per-tree valuation, and a statute that multiplies it. The defendants who pay most are contractors, developers, and neighbors acting through a crew — insured, and on the wrong side of a line they were told about.

Per-tree appraisal drives it

$90,000 per mature tree in Maryland; $95,000 for one coast live oak in Oakland. Multiply by the count.

Willfulness unlocks the multiplier

Warnings ignored, lines flagged, notes left in mailboxes — that record is what turns 1× into 3×.

Insurers write the checks

Tree services, landscapers, and developers carry liability coverage. Most of the settlements above were paid by a carrier.

Cases with this fact pattern are on the shelf now.

Leave your email — we'll follow up within one business day with what's open in your states.

By submitting, you confirm you are contacting us on behalf of a law firm and agree that TreeLawLeads may contact you by email and, if you provide a number, by phone or text about your inquiry and our services. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Terms and Privacy Policy.