Yes, if a jury finds your neighbor willfully cut or destroyed trees on your land without permission. In this case the Appeals Court left in place a $310,000 judgment against a neighbor, built on $100,000 in tree damages trebled under G.L. c. 242, § 7, plus $10,000 for structures he placed on the owners’ land. The court affirmed mainly because the neighbor had not preserved his challenges at trial. It is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
The homeowners sued their neighbor in Superior Court, claiming he cut down or damaged trees on their land and placed things on their property. Both sides represented themselves at the jury trial. One owner testified she saw a man hanging from a rope with a chainsaw, cutting branches on the owners’ trees near the boundary. The neighbor testified that he used a chainsaw and had cut many piles of logs on his own property. The owners’ tree expert testified that their list of replacement values for the damaged trees totaled $109,000 and was reasonable. The jury also found that the neighbor had placed an addition to a building and a construction trailer on the owners’ land.
What the court decided
In Baillargeon v. Lennon, No. 25-P-724 (Mass. App. Ct. March 3, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision), the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment.
The neighbor had not preserved his evidence arguments. On appeal, with a lawyer, the neighbor argued there was not enough evidence that he was the one who cut the trees, or that the damages were right. He admitted he never moved for a directed verdict at trial. Without that motion, an appellate court does not review whether the evidence was sufficient. Hatton v. Meade, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 356, 361 to 362 (1987). The court still looked for a manifest injustice, a narrow review the Supreme Judicial Court recognized in Michnik-Zilberman v. Gordon’s Liquor, Inc., 390 Mass. 6, 9 to 10 (1983). Under that review, the question is only whether there was any evidence at all to support the finding, not whether the evidence was strong.
There was some evidence on every point. The eyewitness testimony about the chainsaw, a photo of the boundary trees, and the neighbor’s own testimony about cutting logs were some evidence that he did it. The expert’s $109,000 figure was close to the jury’s $100,000 single damages award. Photos and a plan of the encroaching addition, with its block foundation and doors, let the jury infer it would cost real money to remove. The jury’s $10,000 encroachment award was not split between the addition and the trailer, and the neighbor had agreed to the verdict form.
Other arguments also failed. The neighbor said the judge should have given more instructions on circumstantial evidence and speculation, but he never asked for them. Unpreserved instruction claims get, at most, review for manifest injustice. Rotkiewicz v. Sadowsky, 431 Mass. 748, 752 n.3 (2000). The court found none. It also rejected his complaints about the owners’ closing argument, which he did not object to at trial, and about the late named expert, because the substance of the expected testimony had been disclosed and had not changed.
What this means for you
Massachusetts takes tree cutting seriously. Under G.L. c. 242, § 7, a person who willfully cuts down or destroys trees on someone else’s land without permission owes the owner three times the damages. The multiplier drops to single damages if the person had good reason to believe the land was his or that he was allowed to cut. In this case, the damages were based on what it would cost to replace the trees, and that can add up fast.
If you are the owner, this case shows what proof can win: a witness who saw the cutting, photos, and an expert on replacement value. If you are the neighbor accused, the lesson is about trial procedure. Going to trial without a lawyer is risky. The neighbor here lost the chance to argue on appeal that the evidence was weak because he did not make a directed verdict motion, did not object to instructions, and did not object to the closing. A good lawyer on appeal cannot fix what was not raised at trial.
Know where your property line is before you cut. A survey costs far less than a treble damages judgment.
What to do now
- If trees on your land were cut, photograph the stumps, the debris and the boundary right away.
- Write down who you saw, when, and what equipment was used. Ask witnesses to do the same.
- Get a survey or plan showing the property line and any structures that cross it.
- Have a certified arborist estimate the replacement value of the trees.
- Talk to a lawyer before trial. Objections and motions at trial decide what can be raised on appeal.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. These cases move on short deadlines.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
