Booska v. Patel: the limit on cutting your neighbor's roots and branches
By Michael Schuck, ISA Certified Arborist WE-15750A · Last reviewed 2026-10-23
The case
A Monterey pine stood on the Booskas' San Francisco lot with roots extending under the Patels' adjoining property. The Patels hired a contractor who excavated along the property line and cut the roots on their side to a depth of about three feet. The tree became unstable, and the Booskas had to remove it. They sued for the loss of the tree.
The trial court granted judgment for the Patels on the theory, drawn from an older line of cases, that a landowner has an absolute right to cut encroaching roots on their own land regardless of the consequences to the tree. The First District Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that the right to abate an encroachment is subject to the general duty of care in Civil Code 1714: a landowner must act reasonably, and whether the Patels' cutting was reasonable was a question of fact that could not be decided against the Booskas as a matter of law.
What it changed
- Before Booska, "it's on my side, I can cut it" was the rule most people, and many contractors, worked from. After it, cutting on your side is lawful only if it is reasonable, and reasonableness looks at the harm to the tree.
- The question is factual: how big was the root, how close to the trunk, how much of the root system did it represent, what was the species' tolerance, what did the cutter know or should have known. Those are arborist questions, which is why the case is argued with arborist reports.
- The harm done by the encroachment is weighed, but it does not license destroying the tree to stop it where a lesser cut would do.
What it means before you cut
- Surface roots and small roots at the fence line can almost always be cut. Structural roots near the trunk usually cannot without destabilizing the tree. The distance that separates them depends on the tree.
- Overhanging limbs can be pruned to the line; cutting them back to stubs, topping, or removing a large share of the canopy is the branch equivalent of Booska's root cut.
- Get the specification first. An arborist's written specification of which roots or limbs can be cut, where, and how, is both the safe way to do the work and your evidence of reasonableness if the owner complains later.
- Tell the owner. Not legally required for cutting at the line, but a neighbor who was told, shown the spec, and offered to share a contractor rarely sues.
For the other side of the fence, where a neighbor's cutting has harmed your tree, see neighbor cut my tree and Civil Code 3346.
Sources
- Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1786 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 241], California Court of Appeal, First District.
- Civil Code § 1714.
Questions people ask
Can I cut roots and branches that come onto my property?
Yes, to the line, at your own expense. Booska adds the limit: reasonably, with regard to the tree, so that you do not injure or destabilize it. Cut past that and you can be liable for the tree.
How do I know what is reasonable for my tree?
It depends on species, size, condition and which roots or limbs are structural. A root the diameter of your wrist within a few feet of a mature trunk is usually structural; a limb cut back to a stub is usually an injury. An arborist's specification tells you where the line is for this tree before you cut.
Does Booska apply to branches too?
The case was about roots, but the reasoning, that a landowner's rights are subject to a duty of reasonable care toward the neighbor's property, applies to any self-help cutting. Topping or stubbing overhanging limbs is the branch equivalent.
What damages can I owe?
The harm to the tree. If the tree has to be removed, that can be its appraised value under the CTLA Guide, and if the cutting was wrongful injury under Civil Code 3346, doubled.
Does it matter that the roots were damaging my property?
It helps you, but it does not create an absolute right. Reasonableness weighs the harm the roots were doing against the harm the cutting does to the tree; the better path is a specification that stops the damage without killing the tree, and a nuisance claim for the damage itself.
When you need a lawyer instead of (or as well as) an arborist
Call a California attorney first if a lawsuit has already been filed, if the damage is over the small claims limit and the other side will not negotiate, or if the dispute is really about where the property line is. We work alongside attorneys every week and the report is written to be used in that setting, but we do not give legal advice and we do not opine on property lines. How we work with attorneys →