High court decides to leaf tree law alone

A dispute over trimming a 100-foot-tall oak tree was put to bed by the Supreme Judicial Court in a pun-laden decision that upheld the legal precedent that keeps such thorny disputes from tangling up the courts.

The tree on Keli-Jo and John Rowell’s property was allegedly causing algae to build up on the roof of their neighbor Mary Shiel’s home. The Rowells refused to cut the tree down and Shiel filed a lawsuit.

“At the root of the case,” according to Justice Elspeth B. Cypher, is a law known as the Massachusetts rule that says homeowners cannot be held liable for damage caused by healthy trees on their property — though neighbors are allowed to trim back intruding branches and roots.

Shiel asked the court to adopt a new position — the Hawaii rule — letting homeowners take their neighbors to court to settle damage claims.

She argued the Massachusetts rule is outdated because “today people are living in closer proximity,” and it should be supplanted by a law that lets people take their issues to court.

The court considered “uprooting” the Massachusetts precedent, but ultimately kept it firmly planted in place.

“The Massachusetts rule today,” the SJC wrote, “may prevent unnecessary legal harassment from neighbors who merely have an ax to grind for reasons other than purported tree problems.”

The court added: “For these reasons, we decline to fell judicial precedent and instead reaffirm the Massachusetts rule.”