GALLO v. HELLER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 86-1654.

Attorney(S)

Jerry A. Burns, for appellant. Brian R. Hersh and Mitchell Panter, for appellees.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a dispute between plaintiff Gretchen Gallo and her next-door neighbors, David and Beverly Heller, concerning certain trees growing on the Hellers' property. The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages, alleging that branches and roots of the Hellers' Ficus and Melaleuca trees encroached onto her property causing damage to her roof, house, and cement walkway, as well as harm to her pet and vegetation. The Circuit Court of Dade County dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed from that final order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a land possessor is liable for nuisance caused by natural growth of trees and vegetation on their property that encroach onto an adjoining property.
Whether the plaintiff states a cause of action for damages resulting from such encroachment under Florida law.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Richmond v. General Eng'g Enters. Co., 454 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)	Adoption of the majority rule that land possessors are not liable for nuisances caused by natural vegetation growth.	Supports the principle that the plaintiff cannot recover damages for natural growth encroachment.
Knepper v. Slovak, 31 Fla. Supp. 131 (Fla. 15th Cir.Ct. 1968)	Reinforces the rule regarding non-liability for natural vegetation nuisances.	Affirms the established rule applied to the plaintiff's complaint.
Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A.2d 144 (D.C. 1950)	Illustrates the common law principle regarding tree encroachment and nuisance.	Used to illustrate the widespread acceptance of the rule.
Schwalbach v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 687 S.W.2d 551 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985)	Supports the majority rule on nuisance caused by natural vegetation.	Reinforces the legal standard applied.
Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp., 68 Md. App. 107, 510 A.2d 592 (Ct.Spec.App. 1986), cert. granted, 307 Md. 753, 517 A.2d 102 (1986)	Confirms the principle that nuisance liability does not extend to natural growth encroachment.	Used to support the court's application of the rule.
Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 232, 175 N.E. 490 (1931)	Leading case establishing the rationale behind non-liability for natural growth nuisance.	Provides the underlying policy rationale cited by the court.
Hasapopoulos v. Murphy, 689 S.W.2d 118 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)	Supports the majority rule on nuisance from natural vegetation.	Further authority for the court's holding.
Loggia v. Grobe, 128 Misc.2d 973, 491 N.Y.S.2d 973 (Dist.Ct. 1985)	Reinforces the principle limiting nuisance liability for natural tree growth.	Supports the court's application of established law.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 840 (1965)	Sets forth the authoritative statement of the law regarding nuisance and natural vegetation.	Serves as a foundational legal principle for the court's analysis.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the established common law and Florida's majority rule that a land possessor is not liable for nuisance caused by natural vegetation growing on their land, even if such growth encroaches onto neighboring property. The court emphasized that while the adjoining property owner may trim encroaching branches or roots at their own expense, the possessor of the land is not liable for damages resulting from such natural growth. The rationale, as explained in the leading case Michalson v. Nutting, is to avoid burdening landowners with numerous and potentially vexatious lawsuits arising from reasonable use of their property. Because the plaintiff's complaint sought damages for a nuisance caused by natural tree growth, it failed to state a cause of action under this well-settled law, justifying dismissal.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

The court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that the plaintiff cannot recover damages for nuisance caused by natural tree growth on an adjoining property under Florida law. The direct effect is that the plaintiff's claims are barred, and no damages or injunctive relief are available. The opinion does not establish new precedent but reaffirms the existing legal principle limiting nuisance liability in this context.

Show full summary ...

GRETCHEN GALLO, APPELLANT, v. DAVID HELLER AND BEVERLY HELLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Gretchen Gallo from a final order dismissing her complaint which seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages against her next door neighbors David and Beverly Heller in a dispute arising over certain trees growing on the Hellers' property. We affirm based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

First, the plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the branches and roots of the Hellers' Ficus and Melaleuca trees have encroached onto the plaintiff's property, causing certain damages, to wit: (a) the tree branches have damaged the plaintiff's roof and house, (b) the tree roots have caused the plaintiff's cement walkway to crack, (c) the leaves of the Melaleuca tree have dropped on the plaintiff's property causing plaintiff's pet Afghan hound to contract a severe allergy, (d) the trees' branches have shaded the plaintiff's property causing certain of the plaintiff's vegetation to die.

Second, the rule at common law and the majority rule in this country, which is followed in Florida, is that a possessor of land is not liable to persons outside the land for a nuisance resulting from trees and natural vegetation growing on the land. The adjoining property owner to such a nuisance, however, is privileged to trim back, at the adjoining owner's own expense, any encroaching tree roots or branches and other vegetation which has grown onto his property. Richmond v. General Eng'g Enters. Co., 454 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Knepper v. Slovak, 31 Fla. Supp. 131 (Fla. 15th Cir.Ct. 1968); see Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A.2d 144 (D.C. 1950); Schwalbach v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 687 S.W.2d 551 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985); Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp., 68 Md. App. 107, 510 A.2d 592 (Ct.Spec.App. 1986), cert. granted, 307 Md. 753, 517 A.2d 102 (1986); Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 232, 175 N.E. 490 (1931) (leading case); Hasapopoulos v. Murphy, 689 S.W.2d 118 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985); Loggia v. Grobe, 128 Misc.2d 973, 491 N.Y.S.2d 973 (Dist.Ct. 1985); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 840 (1965). The underlying rationale for this well-settled law is that

"[I]t is wiser to leave the individual to protect himself, if harm results to him from this exercise of another's right to use his property in a reasonable way, than to subject that other to the annoyance, and the public to the burden, of actions at law, which would be likely to be innumerable and, in many instances, purely vexatious."

Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 232, 175 N.E. 490, 491 (1931).

Third, based on the above-stated law, it is clear that the plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed below for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint claims certain damages for a nuisance allegedly created by the trees growing on the defendant's land, and, plainly, such damages are not recoverable under the established law in this state.

Affirmed.