In 2015, a Kansas neighbour building a boundary fence cut 133 trees, some as far as 70 feet inside the adjoining land; 11 years later, an appeals court has upheld the landowner’s $6,500 damages award

In total, 133 trees on Deal’s property had been felled. (Representational photo)

A Kansas appeals court on Friday, upheld a $6,500 damages award against a man whose fence-building project led to 133 trees being cut on a neighbour’s property in 2015. According to legal research website Justia, the court rejected several challenges raised by accused Douglas H Black, including arguments that the lawsuit was filed too late and that the damages were not properly calculated.The complainant was Jason Deal, who owns about 120 acres of recreational property in Woodson County, Kansas. In March 2015, a fence was rebuilt along the boundary between Deal’s property and land owned at the time by his neighbour, Ivan Black. The fence ran for about 300 feet along the top of a bluff.Douglas Black, Ivan’s son, helped build the fence with his brother Mitch Black, William “Ricky” Ward and Yancy Wade, who was Douglas’ stepson. Ivan bought the materials and paid Ward and Wade for the work. However, no survey was carried out before construction to confirm exactly where the property boundary lay.During the work, Wade cut trees in the area where the new fence was being built. He also cut trees that hung over the planned fence and trees that were considered likely to fall on it. The trees were also left where they fell.The location later became central to the legal dispute because it was difficult to reach from Deal’s side of the property. He could only access it on foot, crossing a creek and climbing a rock bluff. Deal usually visited that part of his land only once a year, mainly in spring to look for shed antlers.

Deal discovered trees a year later

Deal said he discovered the fallen trees and the new fence in March 2016, about a year after the fence work. He contacted Ivan Black, but said he received little information. He then contacted Douglas, who confirmed that he had been responsible for cutting the trees.Deal found that trees had been cut as far as 70 feet from the old fence line. In total, 133 trees on his property had been felled.Deal then filed a lawsuit against Douglas in December 2017, alleging trespass and seeking damages for the destroyed trees. Douglas challenged the case on several grounds, including the argument that Deal had waited too long to sue.The case did not reach trial quickly. There were several delays and continuances, including some connected to the Covid-19 pandemic, settlement discussions and problems involving the lawyers. A bench trial was eventually held in October 2024.Deal told the court that the property had personal and biological importance to him. He has a degree in Fisheries and Wildlife biology and had worked as a public lands regional supervisor. He said he bought the property because it formed part of the Cross Timbers ecosystem and described work he had carried out to improve wildlife habitat, including removing invasive species.

Valuation of the trees

Both sides brought experts to court to discuss the value of the damaged trees. Deal hired consulting forester Ryan Neises. Neises examined the trees that had been cut and identified 115 post oaks, five hickories, five red oaks, two red cedars, two green ashes, two American elms, one hackberry and one redbud. Using his calculations, Neises valued the damage at $13,799.96. Deal also hired forest ecologist and conservation consultant Kevin Church. Using Neises’ observations but a different method of calculation, Church placed the value of the downed trees at $61,497.61.Meanwhile, Douglas hired consulting arborist and tree expert Ivan Katzer. He estimated the damages at about $1,273. Katzer said there was no loss of income, no demonstrable effect on the market value of the land and no timber or amenity value for the particular trees.The district court did not accept either of the experts’ figures as the final amount. In August 2025, it ruled that Wade had trespassed onto Deal’s property when trees were cut well beyond the fence line. Because Wade was found to be Douglas’ agent, the court held Douglas responsible for the damage.The court awarded Deal $6,500. It also reduced that amount by $400 to account for attorney fees Douglas had incurred because of a last-minute trial continuance requested by Deal’s lawyer.

Appeals court says lawsuit filed on time

Douglas challenged the ruling before the Kansas Court of Appeals. One of his main arguments was that Deal’s trespass claim should have been dismissed under the state’s two-year statute of limitations. The appeals court disagreed.Kansas law provides a two-year period for bringing a trespass action. However, the period can begin when the injury becomes reasonably ascertainable if the damage was not reasonably discoverable when the act occurred.The court noted that the tree cutting took place in March 2015. However, it also accepted the district court’s finding that the affected part of Deal’s property was extremely difficult to reach from his side. Douglas himself acknowledged during testimony that reaching the area from Deal’s property was “Extremely difficult.”The appeals court found there was enough evidence to support the district court’s conclusion that Deal could not reasonably have discovered the damage immediately. Deal discovered the trees in March 2016 and filed his lawsuit in December 2017.

Court upholds damages and trespass finding

The appeals court also rejected Douglas’ argument that the $6,500 award was unsupported. The district court had considered the value of the trees, the value of the land and the trees’ intrinsic value. It also considered the fact that the damaged area covered about half an acre of Deal’s 118-acre tract and that he visited that remote section only once a year.The appeals court said there was no clear and universal rule for measuring damages when trees are destroyed. It found that the district court had properly balanced the different factors before reaching its award.The court also upheld the finding that Douglas had trespassed. While Kansas law allows an adjoining landowner to enter neighbouring property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to repair or rebuild a partition fence, the appeals court said that did not justify clearing a 30-foot strip of Deal’s land.The district court had found that trees within the fence line were not part of Deal’s claim. The damages instead related to trees cut farther onto his property.Finally, the appeals court upheld Douglas’ responsibility for the full damages. Although Wade physically cut the trees, Douglas had testified that he was in charge of the crew and had instructed Wade to cut trees that could fall on the fence.The court found sufficient evidence of an agency relationship between Douglas and Wade. It therefore found no error in holding Douglas fully responsible for the damages.