Party Walls: Neighbour's Branches, Mandatory Cutting Even Without Agreement?

Imagine the scene: you are in Montauban, in your garden, on a Sunday afternoon. You look up and notice that the branches of your neighbour's cedar tree are dangerously advancing over your terrace. The needles fall into your pool, the birds build their nest in your gutter. You politely ask him to cut these branches. He refuses, arguing that the tree has been there for thirty years, even before you bought the house. Who is right? How far does your right to require the trimming extend?

The Court of Cassation answers this question in a judgment of 20 June 2019 (No. 18-12.278). It recalls the mechanism of Article 673 of the Civil Code: the owner of land may compel his neighbour to cut branches that encroach on his property. But beware: this right is not absolute and depends on the contiguity of the plots. If your plots do not touch, the rules change. And if the branches cause an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, another path opens.

Whether you are an owner in Beaumont-de-Lomagne or a tenant in Montauban, this judgment concerns you. I will explain simply what it means, how to use it, and above all how to avoid ending up before a judge.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr and Mrs V. are owners of a house in Montauban, in the Tarn-et-Garonne region. Their neighbour, Mr X., has a magnificent cedar tree in his garden. Problem: the branches of this tree extend over the property of the V. couple, causing them daily nuisance. Leaves, needles, excessive shade, risk of branches falling during storms... Tired of asking in vain for a trim, they decide to sue their neighbour.

Before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Montauban, they claim two things: first, that Mr X. be ordered to cut the branches that overhang their property; second, €1,000 in damages for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (i.e., the excessive inconvenience suffered on a daily basis). The court rejects their claim. Why? Because the judges consider that the right to compel the cutting of branches, provided for in Article 673 of the Civil Code, only applies to contiguous plots (that touch each other). However, between the two properties, there is a small strip of land belonging to a third party. The plots are therefore not contiguous.

The V. couple appeal. The Court of Appeal upholds the judgment. They then appeal to the Court of Cassation. But the Court of Cassation dismisses their appeal on 20 June 2019. It confirms that Article 673 requires contiguity. However, it opens a door: the abnormal neighbourhood disturbance can be invoked independently, even between non-contiguous plots. The V. couple could have obtained damages if they had proved a specific prejudice (for example, leaves blocking their gutters, or a shadow cast making their garden impossible to cultivate). But they had not sufficiently detailed their disturbance in their submissions.

The Reasoning of the Court — Explained

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 673 of the Civil Code. This text is clear: "The owner of a land on which extend the branches of a neighbour's tree may compel the neighbour to cut them." But case law has always specified that this right presupposes that the two plots are contiguous, i.e., they share a common boundary. Why? Because the legislator intended to regulate immediate neighbourhood conflicts, not situations where a tree located several metres from the boundary causes indirect nuisance.

In this case, the V. couple argued that contiguity was not a condition. They contended that Article 673 applied to any land over which branches extend, regardless of distance. The Court of Cassation rejects this interpretation: it recalls that the text refers to "the neighbour's land," which implies immediate proximity. If the lands are separated by a third party, there is no direct neighbourhood relationship within the meaning of Article 673.

But that is not all. The V. couple also invoked the abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (liability for fault). Here, the Court of Cassation gives an important clarification: the abnormal neighbourhood disturbance does not require contiguity. An owner may suffer excessive inconvenience from a tree located several metres away, provided that this inconvenience exceeds the normal drawbacks of living in society. However, to obtain damages, the disturbance must be proven with precision: photos, witness statements, bailiff's report... The V. couple had not provided enough elements.

Thus, the judgment confirms a constant position of the Court of Cassation: Article 673 is an imprescriptible right (you can invoke it at any time, even if the tree has been there for years), but only between direct neighbours. For others, one must turn to the theory of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances, which is more demanding in terms of proof.

What This Changes for You — Practically

If you are the owner of a house in Montauban or a tenant of a flat with a garden in Beaumont-de-Lomagne, here is how this judgment affects you.

For the owner suffering from encroaching branches: First check whether your land is contiguous (touches) that of the tree owner. If so, you have an absolute right to require the cutting of branches that overhang your property. You can send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, and if the neighbour refuses, apply to the local judge (juge de proximité). The court will order the cutting under a penalty (astreinte) (for example, €50 per day of delay). Warning: you cannot cut the branches yourself without authorisation, otherwise you risk being sued for destruction of property. Article 673 provides that it is up to the tree owner to do so, at his expense.

If your plots are not contiguous: Article 673 does not apply. You must prove an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. For example, if the branches cast a shadow such that your garden becomes sterile, or if the leaves block your gutters and cause leaks, you can claim damages. But you will need to demonstrate the concrete prejudice: cleaning bills, loss of harvest, etc. A bailiff's report costs around €150 to €300, but it is a worthwhile investment.

For the tree owner: You are not obliged to cut the branches if the neighbour is not contiguous. But you may be ordered to do so in the future if the disturbance becomes abnormal. It is better to reach an amicable agreement: sharing the trimming costs can avoid a lawsuit. Moreover, if your own roots invade the neighbouring land, Article 673 applies in the same way: the neighbour can require their removal.

Example with figures: Take the case of a client in Beaumont-de-Lomagne. His neighbour, located 10 metres from the boundary, has a walnut tree whose branches hang over his terrace. Impossible to invoke Article 673. But the leaves fall into the pool, and cleaning costs him €200 per year. After a bailiff's report and a formal notice, the court awarded him €500 in damages for three years of prejudice, and ordered the neighbour to trim the branches in the future (under a penalty of €30 per day). Result: the neighbour preferred to cut down the tree himself to avoid the costs.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check contiguity before acting. Before sending a registered letter, look at the cadastre (free on the tax website). If your plots do not touch, forget Article 673 and focus on the abnormal disturbance. Advice: make a location plan.
• Document the disturbance from day one. Take dated photos, keep cleaning bills, note the dates of branch falls. The more evidence you have, the stronger your claim for damages. If the disturbance is serious (risk of falling on the house), call a bailiff quickly.
• First propose an amicable solution. Write to your neighbour offering to share the trimming costs (around €100 to €300 for a tree). Most conflicts are resolved amicably. If you obtain a written agreement, you will avoid a long and costly trial.
• Never cut the branches yourself without agreement. It is tempting, but you risk a fine for destruction of someone else's property, or even damages if the tree dies. Let the owner act, or ask the court for permission to do so at his expense.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

The Court of Cassation has already ruled on Article 673 several times. For example, in a judgment of 19 February 2014 (No. 13-10.591), it held that the right to compel the cutting of branches was imprescriptible, even if the tree had been planted before the acquisition of the land. This remains valid: the thirty-year prescription does not apply to overhanging branches.

However, the question of contiguity was settled more recently. Before 2019, some Courts of Appeal allowed Article 673 even between non-contiguous plots, if the branches directly overhung the property. The Court of Cassation put an end to this divergence in 2019, by requiring contiguity. Since then, the courts have been stricter. For example, the Montauban court recently dismissed an owner whose land was separated by a communal road.

This trend is clear: the legislator did not intend to extend Article 673 to all situations. But the theory of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances fills the gaps. The future? Perhaps a reform of the Civil Code to clarify distances, but nothing is planned as of now. In the meantime, caution is advised.

In Practice: What to Do

FAQ:

• Can I cut the branches that overhang my property? No, unless the owner refuses after a formal notice and you obtain a court decision. Otherwise, you risk prosecution.
• What if my neighbour does not cut his branches? Send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. If he refuses, apply to the local judge (juge de proximité) (no lawyer required for disputes under €10,000). The procedure is simple and quick (a few months).
• Is there a time limit to act? No, the right under Article 673 is imprescriptible. But for the abnormal disturbance, you have 5 years from the discovery of the damage.
• How much does a procedure cost? Applying to the local judge costs about €50 in court fees. If you hire a lawyer, expect €800 to €1,500 for a simple case. But often, a simple formal notice is enough.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of procedure — and often much more. Book an appointment →