$100,000 to replace a $28,000 tree they didn't own but sold for $2,000 ???

[Diggin It]

What none of us here knows for sure is whether or not there was a survey, how recent or accurate it is/was and which side of the line it puts the money tree. Hopefully the court will order a new and hopefully impartial/unbiased survey.

I'm not sure I'd trust the park's survey or not.

 

[Jstpssng]

Tree law is something different. A tree has a value for lumber, but as a living tree planted in the ground, they become essentially priceless once they are old enough to not be able to replace. 100,000 doesn't sound like it is outside of some of the things I have heard for other old tree related cases.


I don't think it matters if he says he "believed" he owned the tree or not. The survey was his responsibility and he signed a contract saying he had one done.

I understand what you’re saying yet it does make a difference whether he really did believe that it was his, or it was deliberate theft. If you noticed from the article, he feels they are just using it to pressure him to sell them his land. I’ve seen similar tactics by the National Park Service, so have no doubt that there is some merit to his claim.

 

[dodge man]

I’d also want to see the parks survey and no if their “guy” is licensed or not.

 

[PuffyC]

The guy said he wasn't going to investigate or even fight it so it sounds like his claims for a survey are total BS:

"During the investigation, Jones later told officers that he wanted to take responsibility for the incident, be fined and move on. Jones told investigators that he never lived on the property and only acquired it from his father. The incident report said Jones is “not going to have this big investigation into all this stuff” because “this is not the crime of the century.”

He knows there's no survey and he knows he's boned.

As to the amount, the starting point should be replacement value for what was stolen and destroyed. That's fairly common, right? So how much would it cost to replace it with another living, planted, 100+ year old black walnut that's 5.5 feet in diameter put back in the exact same spot? Assuming that would even be possible, I'm guessing the city's $100,000 price tag would be the screaming deal of the century.

 

[4570Man]

I understand what you’re saying yet it does make a difference whether he really did believe that it was his, or it was deliberate theft. If you noticed from the article, he feels they are just using it to pressure him to sell them his land. I’ve seen similar tactics by the National Park Service, so have no doubt that there is some merit to his claim.

Not really. Lack of a functional brain doesn’t relieve you from criminal negligence. Anyone with any sense would know the park doesn’t mess around with cutting their trees and would have done a survey and pulled string down the line before cutting a sapling much less a 5.5 foot diameter tree. I’m surprised a 100k fine is all this guy is facing.

 

[bnold]

I’ve moved large trees, bought large trees, had to secure bonds on large trees near areas of heavy construction. I’ve even raised large trees to meet new grades (terrible slow process and a 20yr bond on that one I believe)

I maintain $100k is a steal.
‘Timber’ value isn’t even a consideration.

Species, condition, caliper, location.

 

[Jstpssng]

Here's another article, stating that the tree was 250 years old. It also goes into a bit more detail than the OP's link.

A 250-year-old walnut tree was chopped down in Ohio. A brother and sister were hit with felony charges.

 

[cqaigy2]

In PNW the tree thieves always have an excuse for why they cut trees on your property. Kind of a gutsy way to make a living, considering some of the out of the way locations. Who knows how long it would be to find out that a blow down stump tipped back upright and trap a body under it.