The Civil and Commercial Appeals Chamber of Quilmes resolved a neighborhood conflict in Quilmes Oeste caused by the cutting of trees next to a dividing wall.
The decision establishes the conditions under which a property owner can demand the removal of trees or shrubs when they cause excessive disturbances or damage to the adjoining property.
The origin of the case
In 2022, a property owner filed a lawsuit against her neighboring property owners. She requested the cutting of all trees and shrubs located less than three meters from the dividing wall —including a cypress and a willow— and claimed financial compensation.
The alleged inconveniences included:
- Falling leaves, fruits, and pine debris on the roof, patio, and pool.
- Clogged drains and accumulation of dirt.
- Branches invading the dividing wall and damaging the electric fence, triggering the alarm during wind or storm episodes.
The defendants defended the presence of the trees, asserting that they were properly pruned and did not cause harm. They denied the damages and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
First instance: order to cut the trees and compensation
The case was analyzed by a First Instance Court of Quilmes, which recognized the neighborhood relationship and the existence of the dividing wall with an electric fence.
The ruling was based on Article 1757 of the Civil and Commercial Code, related to liability for hazardous things. An expert report by an agronomist considered that the trees represented a special risk due to their size and age, and that the disturbances exceeded the usual tolerance between neighbors.
The judgment ordered the removal of the cypress and the willow, condemned the defendants to pay compensation with interest, and imposed the costs of the process on them.
Appeal and review by the Chamber
Both parties appealed:
- The plaintiff questioned the amount granted and the rejection of moral damages.
- The defendants argued that the damage assessment lacked basis and that there were less burdensome alternatives than cutting, such as pruning.
The Appeals Chamber reviewed the judgment under Articles 168 of the Provincial Constitution and 266 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code. The Court noted that the application of strict liability for hazardous things was inappropriate, as the initial claim was based on disturbances and damages derived from vegetation, not on the danger of the trees falling.
The Chamber recalled the principle of congruence, which requires a ruling to align with the requests and grounds of the claim.
Applicable regulations and final decision
The Court applied Article 1982 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which establishes that a property owner cannot maintain trees or plants that cause excessive disturbances to their neighbor.
According to the expert report, the trees did not invade the adjoining plot and the leaves could only fall if proper pruning was not carried out. In this context, the Chamber concluded that rigorous pruning was sufficient to avoid the problems, making total removal unnecessary.
The final resolution:
- The order to cut the trees was overturned.
- The order to compensate for economic damages (extra cleaning, electricity consumption, and associated products) was upheld.
- Moral damages were rejected due to insufficient evidence (Article 1744 of the Civil and Commercial Code).
- The interest calculation was adjusted by applying the doctrine of the “Barrios” ruling of the Buenos Aires Supreme Court.
- The costs on appeal were distributed according to the outcome, as both parties achieved partial results.
The ruling of the Quilmes Appeals Chamber sets an important precedent in matters of neighborhood coexistence and vegetation on dividing walls. The judgment clarifies that tree removal only proceeds when disturbances are excessive and unavoidable, and that proper pruning can be sufficient to resolve conflicts.
This case reflects how the Civil and Commercial Code regulates neighborhood relations and how courts seek to balance the right to enjoy property with the duty to avoid harm to others.
