Damages and Fines/Penalties for Unauthorized Tree Pruning and Removal
The following is provided for informational purposes
only, and does not constitute legal advice.
For legal advice regarding
particular facts and circumstances, please consult an attorney.
The consequences of unauthorized tree or shrub removal or pruning depend on whether the tree or shrub is on purely private land or in the public right-of-way. Such pruning or removal within the public right-of-way or on public grounds can be authorized by permit from the tree warden, Department of Transportation or other legitimate authority, with appeal from the decision to PURA when a utility has asked for the permit or to the Superior Court in all other cases. (For detailed information, including an exception to the permit requirement for removal of a tree in contact with an electrical wire or burning, see Summary of the Law, and Section 23-59, C.G.S., Section 23-65(f), C.G.S., and Section 16-234, C.G.S., as amended by Public Act 14-151 [not yet codified].) Note that, if the branches or roots of a tree are within the public right-of-way or public grounds, such trees are considered to be subject to the "care and control" of the tree warden or other appropriate authority. The cited statutes do not give the tree warden, DOT and others authority over trees and shrubs on private land.
Prior to seeking court action, you may want to file a complaint with the Consumer Services Unit of PURA. PURA asks that you contact the utility first and give it a chance to resolve the problem, filing a complaint only if you cannot get a satisfactory response from the utility. Only allow a reasonable amount of time for a response. Undue delay will work against you.
Prior to seeking court action, you may want to file a complaint with the Consumer Services Unit of PURA. PURA asks that you contact the utility first and give it a chance to resolve the problem, filing a complaint only if you cannot get a satisfactory response from the utility. Only allow a reasonable amount of time for a response. Undue delay will work against you.
Trees or Shrubs in the Public Right-of-Way:
Pursuant to Section 23-65(b), C.G.S. (click section number for full text), any person, firm or corporation, including a utility, that prunes, removes, injures or defaces a tree or shrub within the public right-of-way or public grounds without the written permit of the tree warden or written permit of other authorities having jurisdiction, such as the Department of Transportation (DOT) , is subject to the following:
In an action brought by the affected property owner or the authority with jurisdiction, e.g. the tree warden or DOT,
(1) the person, firm or corporation may be ordered to restore the land to its prior condition, or
(2) the court "shall award" to the landowner the costs of "restoration, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and such injunctive or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate."
(3) the court, in addition, "may award" damages of up to five times the restoration costs or statutory damages of up to five thousand dollars. In determining this additional award, the court is to consider the willfulness of the violation, the extent of damage, the appraised value of the shrub, ornamental or shade tree, the monetary gain of the violator and other relevant factors.
Section 23-65(d), C.G.S. (click section number for full text) provides that actions, by agents of a person, firm or corporation, that harm shrubs, ornamental or shade trees, without the consent of a tree warden or other similar authority, are deemed to be the act of the person, firm or corporation.
Under one part of Section 23-59, C.G.S. (click section number for full text), a tree warden may adopt regulations for the care and preservation of trees and shrubs that will have the force of a town or borough ordinance if approved by the selectmen or the borough warden, and the regulations may provide for a reasonable fine for each violation.
Section 16-236, C.G.S. (click section number for full text), provides for a Superior Court action for appraisal of damages due for "anything done under any provision of . . . 16-234." Section 16-234, as amended by Public Act 13-298, and then by Public Act 14-151 sets forth specific requirements for notice to abutting property owners of proposed tree pruning and removal by a utility.
Section 13a-140, C.G.S. (click section number for full text), provides for a fine of $1000.00 for "cutting, removing, damaging or pruning any tree, shrub or vegetation" within the Department of Transportation right-of-way in violation of the 13a-140 requirements, including written permits. The DOT commissioner may also sue for civil damages. In addition, subsection (b) provides as follows: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 51-164p, any municipality, by ordinance, may establish a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars, for cutting, removing, damaging or pruning any tree, shrub or vegetation in violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, on any scenic road, designated pursuant to section 13b-31c, located in said municipality. Any such ordinance shall provide for notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the imposition of any such civil penalty. Any person who is assessed a civil penalty pursuant to this subsection may appeal therefrom to the Superior Court."
NOTE: This section also provides: "No such permit shall be issued by the commissioner unless the chief elected official of the municipality in which any tree with a diameter greater than eighteen inches is situated is notified in writing."
Pursuant to Section 23-65(b), C.G.S. (click section number for full text), any person, firm or corporation, including a utility, that prunes, removes, injures or defaces a tree or shrub within the public right-of-way or public grounds without the written permit of the tree warden or written permit of other authorities having jurisdiction, such as the Department of Transportation (DOT) , is subject to the following:
In an action brought by the affected property owner or the authority with jurisdiction, e.g. the tree warden or DOT,
(1) the person, firm or corporation may be ordered to restore the land to its prior condition, or
(2) the court "shall award" to the landowner the costs of "restoration, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and such injunctive or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate."
(3) the court, in addition, "may award" damages of up to five times the restoration costs or statutory damages of up to five thousand dollars. In determining this additional award, the court is to consider the willfulness of the violation, the extent of damage, the appraised value of the shrub, ornamental or shade tree, the monetary gain of the violator and other relevant factors.
Section 23-65(d), C.G.S. (click section number for full text) provides that actions, by agents of a person, firm or corporation, that harm shrubs, ornamental or shade trees, without the consent of a tree warden or other similar authority, are deemed to be the act of the person, firm or corporation.
Under one part of Section 23-59, C.G.S. (click section number for full text), a tree warden may adopt regulations for the care and preservation of trees and shrubs that will have the force of a town or borough ordinance if approved by the selectmen or the borough warden, and the regulations may provide for a reasonable fine for each violation.
Section 16-236, C.G.S. (click section number for full text), provides for a Superior Court action for appraisal of damages due for "anything done under any provision of . . . 16-234." Section 16-234, as amended by Public Act 13-298, and then by Public Act 14-151 sets forth specific requirements for notice to abutting property owners of proposed tree pruning and removal by a utility.
Section 13a-140, C.G.S. (click section number for full text), provides for a fine of $1000.00 for "cutting, removing, damaging or pruning any tree, shrub or vegetation" within the Department of Transportation right-of-way in violation of the 13a-140 requirements, including written permits. The DOT commissioner may also sue for civil damages. In addition, subsection (b) provides as follows: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 51-164p, any municipality, by ordinance, may establish a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars, for cutting, removing, damaging or pruning any tree, shrub or vegetation in violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, on any scenic road, designated pursuant to section 13b-31c, located in said municipality. Any such ordinance shall provide for notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the imposition of any such civil penalty. Any person who is assessed a civil penalty pursuant to this subsection may appeal therefrom to the Superior Court."
NOTE: This section also provides: "No such permit shall be issued by the commissioner unless the chief elected official of the municipality in which any tree with a diameter greater than eighteen inches is situated is notified in writing."
Trees Only on Private Land:
No one, including a utility, has a right to prune or remove a tree located on private land without the consent of the owner of that land, which may be in the form of an easement or other private agreement.
(This should apply to shrubs as well, but the cases described address only trees.)
A legal action for damages may be brought under common law or in accordance with a state statute for removal of trees, timber or shrubbery on private land without consent of the property owner. The statute,
Section 52-560, C.G.S., provides for fives times the value of Christmas trees removed or destroyed and three times the value of other trees, timber and shrubs, but only the reasonable value if the removal or destruction was done by mistake. Despite the use of the terms "trees" and "shrubs," a recent CT Supreme Court decision, Caciopoli v. Lebowitz (2013) reaffirmed past decisions that limited the remedy under Section 52-560 to the value of trees as timber.
Caciopoli also reaffirmed that a common law remedy exists for such illegal removal. The injured property owner can"recover [as damages] the . . . diminution in the value of [the] property" as a result of the unlawful entry and removal of trees. A 2007 Superior Court decision, Martel v. Powadiuk, measured the diminution in value to be paid as damages to the injured property owner "based on the costs of removing the severed trees, grinding and removing the stumps, and replacing the trees." Some cases have suggested that replacement value is not a proper measure of damages, but the Martel court stated that, in the particular case, "the diminution is fairly ascertained by the cost of clearing up the property and in screening the area with new trees." The implication is that replacement costs can be evidence of diminution.
No one, including a utility, has a right to prune or remove a tree located on private land without the consent of the owner of that land, which may be in the form of an easement or other private agreement.
(This should apply to shrubs as well, but the cases described address only trees.)
A legal action for damages may be brought under common law or in accordance with a state statute for removal of trees, timber or shrubbery on private land without consent of the property owner. The statute,
Section 52-560, C.G.S., provides for fives times the value of Christmas trees removed or destroyed and three times the value of other trees, timber and shrubs, but only the reasonable value if the removal or destruction was done by mistake. Despite the use of the terms "trees" and "shrubs," a recent CT Supreme Court decision, Caciopoli v. Lebowitz (2013) reaffirmed past decisions that limited the remedy under Section 52-560 to the value of trees as timber.
Caciopoli also reaffirmed that a common law remedy exists for such illegal removal. The injured property owner can"recover [as damages] the . . . diminution in the value of [the] property" as a result of the unlawful entry and removal of trees. A 2007 Superior Court decision, Martel v. Powadiuk, measured the diminution in value to be paid as damages to the injured property owner "based on the costs of removing the severed trees, grinding and removing the stumps, and replacing the trees." Some cases have suggested that replacement value is not a proper measure of damages, but the Martel court stated that, in the particular case, "the diminution is fairly ascertained by the cost of clearing up the property and in screening the area with new trees." The implication is that replacement costs can be evidence of diminution.