InspecTree
Get free quotes
Menu

Who's responsible for a tree on the property line?

What state law says about a tree that straddles the line and about cutting back a neighbor's branches and roots, state by state, with the court case or statute behind each answer.

Updated September 26, 2026 · 54 official sources
On this page: 3 sections
  1. 1Three patterns
  2. 2State by state
  3. 3Before you cut

There isn't one rule for the whole country. Who owns a tree on the property line, and how far you can cut a neighbor's tree, comes from each state's statutes and court cases, and many states have neither on the question. Here's what we found in all 50 states and DC.

Three patterns

A. The tree belongs to both neighbors (20 states). When the trunk stands on the line, both owners share it, and neither can cut it down or seriously harm it without the other's consent. Alabama, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington.

B. It isn't automatically shared (4 states). A trunk that crosses the line isn't enough on its own. In Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico it depends on where the tree started or on whether the neighbors agreed to share it or treated it as shared. In Georgia each neighbor owns the part on their side, and neither may destroy the whole tree. Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, New Mexico.

C. No settled rule (26 states and DC). In 25 of these we didn't find a statute or appellate case on trees that straddle the line. In Massachusetts the highest court leaned toward shared ownership without deciding it, and in Florida the one case on point dealt with liability rather than ownership. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Cutting back a neighbor's branches and roots is a separate question. Courts or statutes in 33 states and DC have spoken to it, usually allowing you to trim to your own line, and the limits differ: some bar killing the tree, some say you can't step onto your neighbor's land to do it, and Louisiana lets you require your neighbor to do the trimming. In the other 17 states we didn't find a statute or appellate case on it.

State by state

Each answer names the case or statute it comes from. Where we didn't find one, the row says so.

State Pattern A tree on the line Cutting back a neighbor's branches and roots
Alabama A Owned by both neighbors; cutting it down without consent can be a trespass (Young v. Ledford, 2009).1 You may cut branches or roots where they extend onto your land (Young v. Ledford, 2009).1
Alaska C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Arizona C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut intruding branches or roots at your line without notice (Cannon v. Dunn, 1985).2
Arkansas C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
California A Owned by both when the trunk stands partly on each lot; a tree wholly on one lot is that owner's, even if roots cross (Civil Code 833, 834).3 You may cut overhanging branches and roots, but you must act reasonably and can be liable if careless cutting harms the tree (Booska v. Patel, 1994).4
Colorado B Not automatically shared. The owner of the land where it started can remove it unless you planted it, cared for it or treated it as a boundary marker together (Love v. Klosky, 2018).5 We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Connecticut A Each neighbor has an interest, and neither may use their part to unreasonably injure or destroy the tree (Robinson v. Clapp, 1895).6 You may cut back to your line (Robinson v. Clapp, 1895).6
Delaware C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may remove encroaching branches and roots without cutting past your line (a 2023 Chancery report quoting a 1988 Superior Court decision).7
District of Columbia C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut back to your line (Sterling v. Weinstein, 1950).8
Florida C No case says who owns it, but removing a tree on the line without the other owners' consent has been held a trespass (Elowsky v. Gulf Power, 1965).9 You may trim back to your line at your own cost; you generally can't sue over a healthy tree (Gallo v. Heller, 1987).10
Georgia B Not shared: each neighbor owns the part on their side, and neither may unreasonably injure or destroy the whole tree (Willis v. Maloof, 1987).11 We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Hawaii C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut back to your line, above or below ground, at your own cost (Whitesell v. Houlton, 1981).12
Idaho C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Illinois A Owned by both; neither may remove or destroy it without the other's consent (Ridge v. Blaha, 1988).13 You may cut limbs that cause you damage if it doesn't interfere with the other owner's use of a shared tree (Ridge v. Blaha, 1988).13
Indiana A Owned by both when the trunk is wholly or partly on the line; neither may cut or injure it without consent (Luke v. Scott, 1933, stated in passing).14 You may cut overhanging branches as far as they reach over your land, but not cross the line (Luke v. Scott, 1933).14
Iowa A Presumed owned by both; one who destroys it is liable to the other (Musch v. Burkhart, 1891; Harndon v. Stultz, 1904).15-16 You may cut overhanging limbs at the line and dig out roots in your soil (Harndon v. Stultz, 1904).16
Kansas A The state supreme court has said trees on the true boundary belong to both neighbors (Wideman v. Faivre, 1917, stated in passing).17 You may trim branches over your property but can't go onto the neighbor's land to do it without permission (Pierce v. Casady, 1985).18
Kentucky C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut branches and roots back to the line; for ordinary leaf and debris problems that's your only remedy (Schwalbach v. Forest Lawn, 1985).19
Louisiana A Presumed to belong to both. Either neighbor can demand removal of one that interferes with their property, at their own cost (Civil Code art. 687).20 You can require your neighbor to trim branches or roots that interfere with your property, at the neighbor's cost (Civil Code art. 688).21
Maine A Owned by both when the line passes through the trunk above ground (Atkins v. Adams, 2023, in a footnote).22 You may remove any part that crosses onto your land, but not enter your neighbor's land to do it (Atkins v. Adams, 2023).22
Maryland C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut back to your line but not enter your neighbor's land without consent (Melnick v. CSX, 1988).23
Massachusetts C The state's highest court has said such trees are generally treated as owned by both, but it didn't decide the point (Levine v. Black, 1942).24 You may cut intruding branches and roots; for a healthy tree that's your remedy rather than a lawsuit (Michalson v. Nutting, 1931; Shiel v. Rowell, 2018).25
Michigan A Owned by both; neither may cut, injure or destroy it without consent (Lennon v. Terrall, 1932).26 You may cut branches back to where they overhang your land, but not cut down the tree (Hickey v. Michigan Central Railroad, 1893).27
Minnesota B Not automatically shared. It's owned in common only if the neighbors intended or agreed to that, or planted it together (Holmberg v. Bergin, 1969).28 The state supreme court has said you may be able to cut back to the line, and you can sue to have a damaging tree removed (Holmberg v. Bergin, 1969).28
Mississippi C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may remove the part of the limbs that overhangs your land, and no further (Griefield, 1946; Murrell v. Brown, 2016).29
Missouri C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may clip branches as far as they overhang your land, but not cut the tree down (Tanner v. Wallbrunn, 1898).30
Montana A Owned by both when the trunk stands partly on each lot (Mont. Code Ann. 70-16-204).31 We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Nebraska A Treated as owned by both; cutting it without consent is a trespass. The cases involved trees both owners had cared for (Patterson v. Oye, 1983).32 You may cut branches where they enter your property (Jurgens v. Wiese, 1949).33
Nevada C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
New Hampshire A Owned by both, marked or not; cutting it without consent is a trespass (Griffin v. Bixby, 1841).34 We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
New Jersey C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut back roots that invade your land (Scannavino v. Walsh, 2016).35
New Mexico B Not automatically shared. It's jointly owned only where an agreement or course of conduct shows that was intended (Garcia v. Sanchez, 1989).36 You may cut back to your line, above or below ground, at your own cost (Abbinett v. Fox, 1985).37
New York A Owned by both; cutting it without the other's agreement can mean damages (Hollenbeck v. Genung, 1993).38 You may trim branches and cut roots that cross your line, but not destroy the tree or injure its main support (Turner v. Coppola, 1980).39
North Carolina C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
North Dakota A Owned by both when the trunk stands partly on each lot (N.D.C.C. 47-01-17).40 You may cut back to your line at your own cost, and not go onto the owner's land (Herring v. Lisbon Partners, 2012).41
Ohio A Owned by both; neither may remove it without consent (Long v. Meier, 2026).42 You may trim overhanging limbs back to your line (Rababy v. Metter, 2015).43
Oklahoma A Owned by both when the trunk stands partly on each lot; neither may damage or destroy it without consent (60 O.S. 68; Higdon v. Henderson, 1956).44 You may cut branches or roots off at the line, and sue if they cause actual damage (Mead v. Vincent, 1947).45
Oregon C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Pennsylvania C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may trim branches to the extent they cross onto your land and recover reasonable trimming costs (Jones v. Wagner, 1993).46
Rhode Island C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut off limbs that overhang your property (Rosa v. Oliveira, 1975).47
South Carolina C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
South Dakota A Owned by both when the trunk stands partly on each lot (S.D. Codified Laws 43-16-4).48 We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Tennessee C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut back to your line at your own cost but not enter your neighbor's land without consent (Lane v. W.J. Curry & Sons, 2002).49
Texas C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Utah C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Vermont A Owned by both when the line passes through the trunk above ground (Skinner v. Wilder, 1865; Alvarez v. Katz, 2015).50-51 You may cut any part that crosses onto your land, at the line (Alvarez v. Katz, 2015).51
Virginia C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. You may cut back to your line at your own cost (Fancher v. Fagella, 2007).52
Washington A Owned by both; one who cuts or kills it without consent can owe the other triple damages for their share (Herring v. Pelayo, 2017).53 You may cut branches and roots at your line but not cut down the tree (Mustoe v. Ma, 2016).54
West Virginia C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Wisconsin C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.
Wyoming C We didn't find a statute or appellate case. We didn't find a statute or appellate case.

Pattern A: the tree belongs to both neighbors. B: it isn't automatically shared. C: no settled rule.

Before you cut

  • Talk to your neighbor first, and if the tree is on the line, get their agreement in writing before any major work.
  • Stay on your side. The cases that address it say you can't go onto your neighbor's land to cut without permission.
  • Don't harm the tree beyond what's on your side. Several states make you pay two or three times a tree's value if you wrongly cut or destroy someone else's tree.
  • Have an arborist look if cutting roots or large limbs could kill or destabilize the tree. In California, for example, a neighbor who carelessly cuts roots can be liable for the harm.
  • For a real dispute, talk to a local real estate lawyer. Most of these rules come from court cases, and outcomes turn on the facts.

State statutes and appellate court opinions, linked in the sources below, checked September 2026.

Tell us what's happening

One request instead of calling companies one at a time. It's free.

Get free quotesFind companies by ZIP code

Sources (54)

  1. Young v. Ledford, 37 So. 3d 832 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ↑
  2. Cannon v. Dunn, 145 Ariz. 115, 700 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985) ↑
  3. Cal. Civ. Code 834 ↑
  4. Booska v. Patel, 24 Cal. App. 4th 1786 (1994) ↑
  5. Love v. Klosky, 2018 CO 20, 413 P.3d 1267 ↑
  6. Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 32 A. 939 (1895) ↑
  7. Hamby v. Richard L. Sapp Farms, LLC, C.A. No. 2020-0911-BWD (Del. Ch. 2023) ↑
  8. Sterling v. Weinstein, 75 A.2d 144 (D.C. 1950) ↑
  9. Elowsky v. Gulf Power Co., 172 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) ↑
  10. Gallo v. Heller, 512 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ↑
  11. Willis v. Maloof, 184 Ga. App. 349, 361 S.E.2d 512 (1987) ↑
  12. Whitesell v. Houlton, 2 Haw. App. 365, 632 P.2d 1077 (1981) ↑
  13. Ridge v. Blaha, 166 Ill. App. 3d 662, 520 N.E.2d 980 (1988) ↑
  14. Luke v. Scott, 98 Ind. App. 15, 187 N.E. 63 (1933) ↑
  15. Musch v. Burkhart, 83 Iowa 301 (1891) ↑
  16. Harndon v. Stultz, 124 Iowa 440, 100 N.W. 329 (1904) ↑
  17. Wideman v. Faivre, 100 Kan. 102, 163 P. 619 (1917) ↑
  18. Pierce v. Casady, 11 Kan. App. 2d 23, 711 P.2d 766 (1985) ↑
  19. Schwalbach v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 687 S.W.2d 551 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985) ↑
  20. La. Civ. Code art. 687 ↑
  21. La. Civ. Code art. 688 ↑
  22. Atkins v. Adams, 2023 ME 59, 301 A.3d 802 ↑
  23. Melnick v. C.S.X. Corp., 312 Md. 511, 540 A.2d 1133 (1988) ↑
  24. Levine v. Black, 312 Mass. 242, 44 N.E.2d 774 (1942) ↑
  25. Michalson v. Nutting, 275 Mass. 232, 175 N.E. 490 (1931) ↑
  26. Lennon v. Terrall, 260 Mich. 100, 244 N.W. 245 (1932) ↑
  27. Hickey v. Michigan Central Railroad, 96 Mich. 498 (1893) ↑
  28. Holmberg v. Bergin, 285 Minn. 250, 172 N.W.2d 739 (1969) ↑
  29. Griefield v. Gibraltar Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 199 Miss. 175, 24 So. 2d 356 (1946) ↑
  30. Tanner v. Wallbrunn, 77 Mo. App. 262 (Kansas City Ct. App. 1898) ↑
  31. Mont. Code Ann. 70-16-204 ↑
  32. Patterson v. Oye, 214 Neb. 167, 333 N.W.2d 389 (1983) ↑
  33. Jurgens v. Wiese, 151 Neb. 549, 38 N.W.2d 261 (1949) ↑
  34. Griffin v. Bixby, 12 N.H. 454 (1841) ↑
  35. Scannavino v. Walsh, 445 N.J. Super. 162, 136 A.3d 948 (App. Div. 2016) ↑
  36. Garcia v. Sanchez, 108 N.M. 388, 772 P.2d 1311 (Ct. App. 1989) ↑
  37. Abbinett v. Fox, 103 N.M. 80, 703 P.2d 177 (Ct. App. 1985) ↑
  38. Hollenbeck v. Genung, 198 A.D.2d 677, 603 N.Y.S.2d 353 (3d Dep't 1993) ↑
  39. Turner v. Coppola, 102 Misc. 2d 1043, 424 N.Y.S.2d 864 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County 1980) ↑
  40. N.D.C.C. 47-01-17 ↑
  41. Herring v. Lisbon Partners Credit Fund, Ltd. P'ship, 2012 ND 226, 823 N.W.2d 493 ↑
  42. Long v. Meier, 2026-Ohio-3668 (6th Dist.) ↑
  43. Rababy v. Metter, 2015-Ohio-1449, 30 N.E.3d 1018 (8th Dist.) ↑
  44. 60 O.S. 68 ↑
  45. Mead v. Vincent, 1947 OK 295, 199 Okla. 508, 187 P.2d 994 ↑
  46. Jones v. Wagner, 425 Pa. Super. 102, 624 A.2d 166 (1993) ↑
  47. Rosa v. Oliveira, 115 R.I. 277, 342 A.2d 601 (1975) ↑
  48. S.D. Codified Laws 43-16-4 ↑
  49. Lane v. W.J. Curry & Sons, 92 S.W.3d 355 (Tenn. 2002) ↑
  50. Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115 (1865) ↑
  51. Alvarez v. Katz, 2015 VT 86, 199 Vt. 510, 124 A.3d 839 ↑
  52. Fancher v. Fagella, 274 Va. 549, 650 S.E.2d 519 (2007) ↑
  53. Herring v. Pelayo, 198 Wn. App. 828, 397 P.3d 125 (2017) ↑
  54. Mustoe v. Ma, 193 Wn. App. 161 (2016) ↑

Find companies in your county

Request a quoteSearch by ZIPTree services near you