Treetops near multi-million dollar West Vancouver home lead to lawsuit

[Klazu]

It's a multi-million dollar home with a million dollar view but Xu Kuai says he can't sell it because his neighbour's trees are obstructing the ocean vista from parts of his house.

In a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Xu Kuai claims the neighbour who lives below him is refusing to trim her trees. The stubborn treetops can be seen in the background of bedroom pictures on the realty listing for the property at 2452 Chippendale Road—the price tag: $3.1 million.

He claims those are the tips of trees growing on his neighbour's lot just below him. According to the notice of civil claim, Kuai says he's been trying unsuccessfully to sell his house since June.

Treetops can be seen encroaching on the view from the bedroom window of the house at 2452 Chippendale Road in West Vancouver. ​The lawsuit also refers to a covenant British Properties wrote when the lots were created that forbid vegetation growing higher than the roof of the house below Kuai's.

Kuai says his lawyer brought this to the woman's attention in August, but she's allowed some trees to grow up to 20 feet higher than the ridge of her own roof.

He's seeking an injunction that will either force his neighbour to trim her trees or allow him to do it for her. The neighbour hasn't filed a statement of defence and Kua's notice of civil claim only represents one side of the story.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...suit-1.2773438

Treetops of horror:

[Pinion]

The same thing is happening to my condo. All the south facing people are losing their city skyline/ocean view and they're begging the apartment owner across the street to prune the trees, even offering it to partially pay. Not crazy enough to sue though.

[Metro-One]

Nothing screams first world problem more than this!

[spm2013]

Well if there is a covenant then the neighbour should probably just cut their losses and let them pay to trim them, unless you want to go through the expense of fighting it.

[Klazu]

What I didn't understand is how is this worth Supreme Court's time in any way? Also, those treetops are no way intrusive (yet) and surely not the reason why his house is not selling.

Likely the seller is just too greedy in thinking how much his house is worth. The shutdown of Investor Program means that there is less wealthy buyers in this price range and not all crap will sell...

More likely reason why his house is not getting any attention are the crappy quality photos on the real estate agent's website than the treetops...

http://www.clarencedebelle.com/cdb_s...ng_details/137

[memememe76]

Except for small claims (claims under $25,000.00), virtually all civil cases in BC are heard in Supreme Court.

[ozonemania]

Originally Posted by Klazu

What I didn't understand is how is this worth Supreme Court's time in any way? Also, those treetops are no way intrusive (yet) and surely not the reason why his house is not selling.

Likely the seller is just too greedy in thinking how much his house is worth. The shutdown of Investor Program means that there is less wealthy buyers in this price range and not all crap will sell...

More likely reason why his house is not getting any attention are the crappy quality photos on the real estate agent's website than the treetops...

http://www.clarencedebelle.com/cdb_s...ng_details/137

Trees and views on the North Shore is a very very very very contentious issue. This man may be upset for the reason of selling his property, but for every person like him, there are 10 others who are upset because it's ruining their view from their home.

Most people who have bought into the area paid a premium with the expectation of a persisting, postcard perfect view. Otherwise, they could have easily purchased in non-view neighbourhoods like Point Grey, Kerrisdale or Shaunnesy.

THE VIEW IS EVERYTHING -- and things that jeopardize that will elicit a huge emotional response.

Now that the neighbourhoods (and their trees) are all maturing, lots of homes are risking losing their views if they live behind a apathetic/lazy/selfish neighbour. This type of jockeying and negotiating is going on all the time on the North Shore but it rarely gets to these extremes.

It is a first world problem (maybe more like a 1%er problem) so I can totally see why there is no sympathy for this type of problem.

[red-paladin]

The question is if the person downhill has a legal obligation to manage the tree height. If there is a covenant, bi-law, etc, that says they should, then the home owner in the article has a right to kick up a storm. However, if in these cases there is no obligation on the downhill homeowner, that may mean they are jerks, but it means the uphill homeowner really has no case. I'd like to hear more about this specific case, to see who turned out to be in the right.

[Pinion]

edit: nm, misread the article

[GMasterAres]

For the first world problem comment, just because we live in the "first world" doesn't mean issues we have in the society we fought to have are somehow not important simply due to people starving in a country elsewhere. I understand the "first world problem" comment and at times think we do complain over completely ridiculous things, but one of the items that has made our society the way it is, is our judicial system.

Yes people complain about it at times, but western justice still stands tall over justice in almost all other parts of the world. And that system is why we live in a first world country where we can actually complain about views.

Truth is, if there is a covenant, then the neighbor has a legal obligation to follow it and not obstruct the view. The neighbor's home is probably worth $3+ million too so it's not some rich guy complaining about the 1%. It's two people on even par financially dealing with neighbor issues.

He tried to reason with her and explain the requirement, and it's been a while too, so with her refusal the only course left is the courts.

It's the British Properties, views basically are the entire worth of the homes there.

[spm2013]

Only in the first world. people live next to each other and have conflicts. YOLO.

It's not really in the British Properties (though it was built by BPP). And most of the clear cut British Properties is quickly reverting back to a rainforest.

[Pinion]

Saying the view is the entire worth of the property is silly. You can't get a viewless detached home for less than $1.5 million there.

[djmk]

I live on the north shore and I am one of those people who dislike the trees. Not because they ruin my view (because I don't think I would have one. I would not know because of all the trees in the way), but because these trees grow HUGE and there are too many of them.

I would imagine the developers clear cutted my neighbourhood in the 60's and then re planted some trees. 35-40 years later and you can longer see the tops. And there are hundreds of them. I can't see my neighbours house. I don't have any sun light. I have roots growing every where.

Also on my street, some of my neighbours have these "heritage stumps" (i think that is what the District is calling them). They are the stumps left behind by the loggers who logged north van like a 100 years ago. These stumps are massive. Easily as big as a small car. It makes me wonder how tall these trees are going to be.

rant over. thanks for listening.

[worldwide]

cutting the tops off of trees is in no way ever a good idea. it's a safety issue and a liability, plus it looks terrible. if anything cut the trees down entirely and replace them with smaller slower growing species.