Opinion ID: 3166307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Value of Timber

Text: In the Chaceys’ fourth assignment of error, they assert that the trial court erred in permitting Garvey’s timber trespass claim (count 1) to proceed to the jury because Garvey failed to provide any evidence related to the value of the alleged damaged timber. Essentially, the Chaceys are arguing that evidence related to the value of the damaged timber is a prerequisite to awarding any of the additional damages provided for under Code § 55-332(B). Those additional damages are the reforestation costs, the costs of ascertaining the value of the timber, and any 2 Our resolution of assignment of error 1 makes it unnecessary for us to address assignments of error 2 and 3. 8 directly associated legal costs incurred as a result of the trespass. Code § 55-332(B). Because Garvey’s expert witness was excluded, she was unable to introduce any evidence of the value of the timber on the stump. However, she introduced evidence of the reforestation costs and testified that she had already paid a $440 deposit to a specific tree services company towards those costs. She also testified that she had incurred legal costs as result of the trespass. As stated above, when the language of a statute is unambiguous, we are bound by its plain meaning. Conyers, 273 Va. at 104, 639 S.E.2d at 178. An examination of Code § 55332(B) demonstrates that any person who removes timber from the land of another without permission shall be liable to pay to the rightful owner, “three times the value of the timber on the stump and shall pay to the rightful owner of the property the reforestation costs incurred not to exceed $450 per acre, the costs of ascertaining the value of the timber, and any directly associated legal costs incurred by the owner of the timber as a result of the trespass.” (emphasis added). There is nothing in this provision that states that an owner is only entitled to reforestation costs, legal costs, or the costs of ascertaining the value of the timber after he or she first establishes the value of the timber that was improperly taken. Instead, the statute makes clear that the person who removed the timber “shall be liable to pay” all of these damages to the owner. The fact that Garvey was unable to prove the value of the timber on the stump in this case did not preclude her from being able to recover the other damages she was entitled to under Code § 55-332(B). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing Garvey’s claim for timber trespass (count 1) to go to the jury.