A disagreement between two neighbours in Michigan over trees that threatened a barn has ended with an appeals court ruling against the homeowner who wanted them removed. Seth Merle and Richard Hagopian had agreed to pay $2,000 each to remove the trees, but the work never happened. After a dispute over the money reached court, Merle filed another lawsuit over the same trees. On September 23, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that he could not bring the case again because the issue had already been decided.According to the judgment, the dispute involved two neighbouring properties in Livingston County, Michigan. Merle had a barn at the back of his property, close to land owned by Hagopian. Several trees stood on Hagopian’s side of the boundary, and some of their branches extended onto Merle’s property.Merle was worried that the trees might fall onto his barn and cause damage. He hired an expert to examine them, and the expert warned that some of the trees could fall onto his property within a year. This added to Merle’s concerns about leaving them standing.The two neighbours initially agreed to share the cost of removing the trees. They signed a written agreement under which Merle would arrange the work and both men would contribute $2,000. They also agreed that if the work could not be completed, Merle would return Hagopian’s money. However, the trees were not removed, and Hagopian did not get his money back and it soon became a court dispute.
Neighbour demands his $2,000 back
When the tree removal did not take place, Hagopian approached a small claims court to recover the money he had paid. Merle responded that Hagopian had failed to take proper care of the trees and that this had caused him damages.The judge ruled in Hagopian’s favour and ordered Merle to return the $2,000, along with court costs. The court also rejected Merle’s claim that Hagopian had been negligent in maintaining the trees.In its ruling, the court said the dispute concerning the trees on Hagopian’s property had been fully resolved. It also stated that if any of those trees later fell and damaged Merle’s property, Merle would be responsible for the damage.
Homeowner files another lawsuit
Merle filed a new case, again raising concerns about the trees growing on Hagopian’s land. He argued that the trees were dangerous and that his neighbour had failed to maintain them properly. He also complained about branches extending onto his property and asked the court to take action.Hagopian argued that the earlier court had already dealt with the dispute and that Merle should not be allowed to bring another case over the same issue.Merle said the earlier case had mainly concerned the return of Hagopian’s $2,000 and that the danger posed by the trees had not been properly considered.However, the second court pointed out that Merle himself had raised the issue of poor tree maintenance during the first case. His earlier complaint had accused Hagopian of negligence, meaning that the question of whether Hagopian was responsible for the condition of the trees had already been considered.The court also criticised Merle’s tone when discussing the earlier judgment and rejected his attempt to reopen the dispute. Merle then challenged this decision before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
What Appeals court said
The appeals court examined whether Merle could file another lawsuit when a previous court had already considered his complaint about the trees.Merle argued that the problem was continuing because Hagopian had still not taken care of the trees. According to him, every day that the trees remained unattended was another day his neighbour had failed to address the danger.However, the appeals court did not agree. The judges explained that the earlier court had already considered whether Hagopian was negligent in maintaining the trees and had rejected Merle’s claim.They found that Merle’s new lawsuit concerned the same alleged failure to maintain the trees. Simply because the trees remained standing did not mean he could bring another case over the same complaint.The court also explained that once a dispute has been decided, the same parties generally cannot keep returning to court with claims arising from the same issue.