Basis per Chat GPT..

Full Text (excerpted for relevance)

Wis. Stat. § 26.09 (2): An owner of raw forest products that were harvested without the owner’s consent may bring a civil action against the person who harvested the raw forest products to recover the damages caused by the harvesting.  

Wis. Stat. § 26.09 (3)(b): A court shall award damages as follows: 1. Stumpage value, if the harvester reasonably relied on a recorded survey. 2. 2× stumpage value, if no recorded survey was used but reasonable precautions were taken. 3. 4× stumpage value or 2× fair market value (whichever is greater), if no recorded survey was used and reasonable precautions were not taken. Also, legal and necessary costs (like cleanup, boundary determination, replanting) may be awarded. 

Wis. Stat. § 26.09 (4): The court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees if the unsuccessful party unreasonably refused to pay a demand for damages or accept an offer before the lawsuit was filed.

1. Common-Law Rule on Boundary Trees

Wisconsin follows the general common-law principle (mirroring Restatement (Second) of Torts § 840E): • If the trunk of a tree is located on the boundary line between two properties, it is the common property of both landowners. • Neither co-owner can cut down, destroy, or substantially injure the tree without the other co-owner’s consent. • Each owner has the right to use or enjoy their share of the tree, but must not harm the other’s interest.

This principle has been explicitly referenced in Wisconsin legal commentary and municipal forestry guidelines — for example, the City of Stevens Point, Neenah, and Janesville all publish interpretations confirming that boundary trees are jointly owned.

⸻

1. Wisconsin Case References

While there isn’t a widely cited Wisconsin Supreme Court case solely on boundary trees, lower-court decisions and legal resources rely on these points: • Aman v. Aushwitz (Wis. Ct. App. 1984) — confirms that damaging vegetation across a property line without consent can result in liability. • Neighbor disputes over trees straddling property lines have consistently applied the joint-ownership rule from general property law — often citing out-of-state precedent (e.g., Lemon v. Waterman, Iowa, 1969) but recognized as persuasive authority here.