A construction project that crosses a property boundary can turn a routine clearing job into a costly legal dispute.
A construction project that crosses a property boundary can turn a routine clearing job into a costly legal dispute. In Oregon, the state Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment awarding Tom Butori $810,000 in treble damages after a jury found that trees, shrubs and other plants were removed from as much as 150 feet inside his land, according to a report by the Times of India. The opinion in Butori v. Bosma, case number A181266, is dated 8 April 2026.
The dispute concerned adjoining parcels known as Government Lots 6 and 7. Butori owned Lot 6, while Bosma Enterprises Inc., in which Henry Bosma held an ownership interest, owned Lot 7. Butori alleged that Bosma hired VB Construction in 2018 to work on the neighbouring property, and that the clearing extended well beyond the boundary. The defendants disputed where the line lay and presented competing evidence. The jury found in Butori's favour and determined that the timber trespass was willful or intentional. Oregon law allows treble damages when someone willfully or intentionally cuts, injures or removes trees or shrubs on another person's land.
On appeal, Bosma and the company raised three challenges. They argued that the trial court had improperly allowed Butori to testify about his understanding of the boundary after meeting the county surveyor. The appeals court noted that the trial judge had stopped Butori when he began repeating what the surveyor had told him, and that his later testimony concerned his own belief, based partly on his observations and the meeting. Because he did not repeat an out-of-court statement, the testimony was not hearsay, the court found.
The defendants also challenged evidence of an earlier timber trespass settlement between the same parties involving the general area near the disputed boundary, arguing that jurors might assume they had admitted fault. The trial court admitted the agreement for a limited purpose: showing that Bosma knew the boundary was disputed, which could help jurors decide whether the later clearing was intentional or accidental. The judge removed the amount paid under the earlier settlement and instructed jurors not to treat the agreement as proof of liability. The appeals court found no error.
The final argument was that there was insufficient evidence to hold Bosma personally responsible rather than the company that owned the neighbouring property. The appeals court explained that a person is not automatically protected from liability for their own actions merely because they act through a business. A surveyor testified that Bosma hired him in 2011 to prepare a topographical map near the property line, and that during an on-site discussion he warned Bosma to stay within the right of way but described him as dismissive of his understanding of the boundary. The surveyor also testified that Bosma hired him again in 2018 to document clearing that had already taken place, and located that clearing on Butori's property based on an earlier survey. The jury could reasonably infer that Bosma personally caused the clearing and acted intentionally, the court said.
The ruling leaves the $810,000 treble-damages award intact. The case turns on the jury's finding of intent and on evidence that Bosma knew the boundary was disputed before the 2018 work. The report does not say whether a further appeal is planned, and the reasoning is drawn from the appeals court's opinion as summarised in the coverage.
