Court Opinion

ID: 9675855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:07:38.552203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:39.877041
License: Public Domain

Hannon, Judge,
Retired, concurring.
I agree with the majority’s opinion, except I believe a part of the rule quoted from Keitges v. VanDermeulen, 240 Neb. 580, 483 N.W.2d 137 (1992), is not applicable to the case at hand and is misleading when applied to this case. I refer to that part which states, “when the owner of land intends to use the property for residential or recreational purposes.” Id. at 589, 483 N.W.2d at 143. Insofar as I can learn, this particular part of the rule first appeared in the Keitges case. In Keitges, the geographic location of the property, the location of the trees on the property, and their origin were such that the trees could have value only if they had value for recreational and residential purposes. The evidence in that case showed there was an indigenous growth of trees and shrubs on the edge of a 10-acre parcel of real estate located in extreme eastern Nebraska. That situation is in no way comparable to a deliberately planted and watered grove of trees near a farmstead on a 4,000-acre ranch in southwestern Nebraska.
The Keitges court noted, “One person’s unsightly jungle may be another person’s enchanted forest.” Id. The facts in Keitges bore out that observation. The defendant, who owned a similarly sized adjacent piece of property, apparently thought nothing of taking a bulldozer and chain saw to the trees. The defendant’s evidence was to the effect that the value of the plaintiff’s property was not decreased by his destructive action. In Keitges, the undisputed evidence was to the effect that the plaintiff intended to build a residence on the property in the future and to enjoy the property as a family retreat for “ ‘nature hikes’ ” and “ ‘nature study’” in the meantime. 240 Neb. at 590, 483 N.W.2d at 143. The evidence does not indicate that he had any other purposes for the trees. To my mind, on the point I raise, I think the case stands for the proposition that one’s lawful use of his or her property is entitled protection from a negligent neighbor even if the neighbor, or even the neighborhood, does not think much of the landowner’s use.
*615The evidence in the case at hand is that Spicer Ranch’s trees were planted in the early 1980’s and subsequently watered and that they not only sheltered the home but also gave shelter and protection for calving and horse operations. I think anyone familiar with the history of tree claims during pioneer days or the shelterbelts starting in the 1930’s knows that trees in outstate Nebraska can be considered either priceless or a detriment, or something in between, depending upon the values and economic interests of the owner.
Since in the past trees could not be readily moved and irrigated, the older cases involving trees did not consider the possibility of replacing damaged and destroyed trees in rural areas. However, those cases did recognize the value of the use the landowner made of the trees and the value the owner placed on them. The landowner’s recovery was not limited to the decrease in the value of the real estate. The old cases held that where the trees had no value separate from the land, testimony on the value of the trees with reference to the real estate was admissible. See, Alberts v. Husenetter, 77 Neb. 699, 110 N.W. 657 (1906); Union P. R. Co. v. Murphy, 76 Neb. 545, 107 N.W. 757 (1906); Missouri P. R. Co. v. Tipton, 61 Neb. 49, 84 N.W. 416 (1900). The evidence in these cases was invariably the value the owner and his neighbors placed on the trees as they set on the land.
The old cases involving trees are not helpful on replacement damages, but they do throw some light on what causes trees to have a value separate from the real estate. In Alberts, supra, a Brown County case, the court recognized the shortage of natural timber in western Nebraska as well as the value of the landowner’s cottonwood and mulberry trees as ornaments and as furnishing shade in the summer and shelter in the winter. Insofar as I can tell, none of these cases attached any significance to recreation or residency as opposed to just farm use. In my opinion, it is common in western Nebraska for shelterbelts to protect farmsteads from the wind, to provide shade, and to add beauty, but shelterbelts located a distance from the farmers’ and ranchers’ homes are used to shelter animals, both domestic and wild. Some shelterbelts are even used by nonfarm businesses. Such owners are also entitled to protection from tort-feasors.
*616In my opinion, depending upon the evidence, the rule is that if an owner is using land according to his or her personal tastes and wishes for any lawful purpose, the owner is entitled to recover the reasonable replacement cost and improvement to the extent of the value of the real estate upon which the owner has seen fit to maintain the trees.