For this paralegal certificate assignment, I was asked to write an interoffice memo based on the following scenario.
“Jason’s neighbor has a large sycamore tree located near the fence between the two properties. The tree drops leaves and sycamore balls in Jason’s yard each fall. Jason has repeatedly asked his neighbor to trim the overhanging branches so his yard will not receive the litter from the tree, but the neighbor refuses to cut back the tree. While the neighbor is on vacation, Jason drills holes in the trunk of the tree just below ground level and also drills through any roots with which he comes into contact.”
Office Memorandum
TO: Professor Brown CASE: Mr. Neighbor vs. Jason Richards
FROM: Natalie Matos, Paralegal CASE TYPE: Negligence
DATE OF MEMO: May 13, 2026 OFFICE FILE NUMBER: 26-05-126
RE: Potential Claim Against Mr. Richards for destruction of property
Issue
Does Mr. Richards' neighbor (Mr. Neighbor) have a cause of action against him after Mr. Richard intentionally drilled holes into the trunk and roots of the neighbor’s sycamore tree, causing the tree to die?
Summary
Mr. Neighbor likely has a valid cause of action against Mr. Richards under Florida law for trespass to property and property damage, including potentially trespass to timber or conversion-type damages for destruction of the tree. Mr. Richards intentionally damaged the tree by drilling holes into the trunk and roots without permission. If the tree dies as a result, Mr. Neighbor can likely establish all required elements of the claim, including ownership of the property, intentional interference, causation, and damages. The facts support liability because Mr. Richards acted deliberately and without legal justification.
Analysis
1. Trespass to Property
FL defines trespass on property (other than a structure of conveyance) as
“A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:” Fla. Stat. § 810.09 (1)(a).
It has been stated that the sycamore tree is located on Mr. Neighbor’s property, near the fence dividing the two properties, and that Mr. Richards entered Mr. Neighbor’s property while he was on vacation to damage the tree. It is unlikely Mr. Neighbor gave Mr. Richards permission to enter his property while he was gone, thus satisfying the element that Mr. Richards was trespassing.
2. Ownership or Possessory Interest
It has already been stated that the tree in question is on Mr. Neighbor’s property, on the other side of the fence dividing the two properties. This gives Mr. Neighbor clear ownership of the tree, satisfying the second element of trespass.
The facts state that the sycamore tree is located on the neighbor’s property near the fence line. Because the trunk is on the neighbor’s land, the tree legally belongs to the neighbor.
3. Damages
Mr. Richards intentionally drilled holes into the tree trunk and roots while the neighbor was away on vacation. His actions were deliberate and purposeful rather than accidental.
Per Scott v. McCarty
“[A] possessor of land is not liable to persons outside the land for a nuisance resulting from trees and natural vegetation growing on the land. The adjoining property owner to such a nuisance, however, is privileged to trim back, at the adjoining owner's own expense, any encroaching tree roots or branches and other vegetation which has grown onto his property.”
Mr. Richards did not trim back any encroaching parts of the tree; however, he went onto Mr. Neighbor's property and damaged the tree directly.
If the tree dies due to these actions, Mr. Neighbor may be able to recover not only the cost of the tree, but the costs to remove and replace the tree based on Elowsky v. Gulf Power Co, where damages were awarded for reduction in property value and the use and comfort of the tree when one on the property line was cut down without the permission of both property owners.
Conclusion
Mr. Neighbor likely has a strong cause of action against Mr. Richards under Florida law for intentional property damage and trespass involving the destruction of the sycamore tree. The neighbor owns the tree, Mr. Richards intentionally and without authorization damaged it, and if the tree dies, then Mr. Richards will likely be responsible for the damages.
Works Cited
Elowsky v. Gulf Power Co., 172 So. 2d 643, 644–45 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965), https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I0a2d9ca60d2611d9821e9512eb7d7b26/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0
Fla. Stat. § 810.09 (1)(a) (2025), https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.09.html
Scott v. McCarty, 41 So. 3d 989, 989 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010), https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ifb9f25919fcc11dfa7f8a35454192eb4/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0
References
Gallo v. Heller, 512 So. 2d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987), https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iff5d17c30dab11d99830b5efa1ded32a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0
Meinzinger, Mary, and Miller. “Chapter 14. Tort Law, Product Liability, and Consumer Law.” Paralegal Today: The Legal Team at Work, 8th ed., Cengage, 2022, p. 429.
Olexa, Michael, and Christopher Hill. “Handbook of Florida Fence and Property Law: Trees and Landowner Responsibility.” Ask IFAS – Powered by EDIS, 3 Oct. 2022, ask.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FE962.