G.L. c. 242, § 7; G.L. c. 260, § 2A; Glavin v. Eckman, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 313 (2008)
Trespass and private nuisance in Massachusetts — and the treble-damages tree statute
A claim in Massachusetts trial courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Two neighbouring torts share this page because they are pleaded together and answer different questions. Trespass is about who may be on the land. Nuisance is about what may be done nearby.
One statute makes this area unusual. Under G.L. c. 242, § 7, a person who "without license willfully cuts down, carries away, girdles or otherwise destroys trees, timber, wood or underwood on the land of another shall be liable to the owner in tort for three times the amount of the damages assessed" — with a single-damages escape for a defendant who had good reason to believe the land was their own.
What the claims are
Trespass: someone came onto your land, or put something on it, without the right to.
Nuisance: something a neighbour does interferes with your ability to use and enjoy your own property — noise, odour, water, light, smoke, vibration.
Where the rights come from
Common law, with the tree statute in c. 242 § 7.
Trespass — what a plaintiff has to prove
- The plaintiff's possession of the land, actual or constructive;
- An intentional entry or intrusion by the defendant, or by something the defendant caused to enter; and
- Without privilege or consent.
No damage is required. Trespass is complete on the entry, and a plaintiff who suffered nothing recovers nominal damages and, in an appropriate case, an injunction.
"Intentional" refers to the act of entering, not to any knowledge that the land belonged to someone else. A surveyor's error is no defence to liability, though it matters a great deal to the tree statute's multiplier.
What counts as an entry: walking on the land, building over the line, running a pipe or wire under it, dumping fill, diverting water, leaving a structure after permission ends.
Private nuisance — what a plaintiff has to prove
- An interest in the land — ownership or possession;
- A substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of it; and
- Causation and damage.
The test is substantial and unreasonable, and both words work. Ordinary neighbourhood irritation is not enough. The court weighs the gravity of the harm against the utility of the defendant's conduct, and the character of the area matters — the same noise is a nuisance in a residential street and not in an industrial district.
Nuisance does not require entry. That is the difference from trespass. Noise, odour and light cross the line without anything physical arriving.
A private nuisance is not the same as the public nuisance the Commonwealth or a municipality abates. This claim belongs to a landowner whose own use is impaired.
The tree statute
Section 7 is short, and every phrase in it does work.
"Without license" — permission defeats it.
"Willfully cuts down, carries away, girdles or otherwise destroys" — the act must be deliberate; accidental damage falls outside it and is ordinary negligence.
"Trees, timber, wood or underwood" — the section covers standing growth, not landscaping generally.
"Three times the amount of the damages assessed."
The escape: "but if it is found that the defendant had good reason to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was his own or that he was otherwise lawfully authorized to do the acts complained of, he shall be liable for single damages only."
So the multiplier turns on the defendant's belief about the boundary, not on the plaintiff's loss. A contractor who cleared to a surveyed line in good faith pays single damages; one who cut what they knew was not theirs pays three times.
How the damages are measured matters more than the multiplier. Glavin v. Eckman, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 313 (2008), upheld an award based on the cost of restoration — replacing mature trees — rather than the diminution in the land's market value, where the trees had particular value to the owner. Restoration cost for mature trees runs high, and trebling it higher still.
Overhanging branches — the Massachusetts rule
Massachusetts gives no cause of action for branches or roots that cross the property line. The remedy is self-help: the owner may cut them back to the boundary line at their own expense, and that is all.
This surprises people, and it cuts both ways. A neighbour bothered by an overhanging limb may trim it. A neighbour whose tree is trimmed to the line has no claim — but a neighbour whose tree is cut past the line is back in c. 242 § 7 territory, with the multiplier attached.
How long you have to file
Three years under G.L. c. 260, § 2A.
A continuing trespass or nuisance — an encroaching structure, a persistent discharge — gives a new cause of action as it continues, so the plaintiff recovers for the three years preceding suit and may obtain an injunction going forward, even where the condition began decades ago.
A permanent nuisance, by contrast, accrues once and runs from then. Which characterisation applies decides whether an old condition is still actionable.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing. In practice a survey comes first in any boundary case, because possession and the line are the elements.
What the claim pays
Diminution in the property's market value, or the cost of restoration where that is reasonable and the property has particular value to the owner.
Loss of use and enjoyment, in nuisance.
Nominal damages, in trespass with no measurable loss.
Treble damages under c. 242 § 7 for wilful tree-cutting, unless the good-faith belief defence applies.
Twelve percent prejudgment interest under G.L. c. 231, § 6B.
An injunction, which is often the real objective — an order to remove the encroachment, stop the discharge, or abate the noise.
No attorney's fees, absent a statute. Where the conduct was in trade or commerce, chapter 93A can supply them.
Which court
District Court or the Boston Municipal Court within the $50,000 threshold; Superior Court above it; and the Land Court where the dispute is about boundaries, encroachment or a right in land, which is where these cases usually belong.
Common defenses
- Consent or licence, express or implied.
- A right to be there — an easement, a right of way, a utility's rights.
- Good reason to believe the land was the defendant's, which reduces tree damages to single.
- No substantial or unreasonable interference, in nuisance.
- The character of the locality makes the conduct reasonable.
- Adverse possession or prescription, which converts the trespasser into an owner or easement holder.
- Limitations, subject to the continuing-wrong rule.
What people get wrong
Cutting a neighbour's trees can treble the damages — and the measure may be the cost of replacing mature trees, not the drop in land value.
Good faith about the boundary is a real defence to the multiplier, though not to liability.
Overhanging branches give no claim. Trim to the line yourself.
Trespass needs no damage. Nuisance needs substantial interference.
Noise is not automatically a nuisance. It has to be unreasonable in that place.
An old encroachment may still be actionable if it is a continuing trespass — and after twenty years it may have ripened into adverse possession instead.
Where it came from
Trespass is the oldest civil action in the common law and its shape has barely changed: entry without right, actionable without proof of harm, because the wrong is the interference with possession itself.
Nuisance grew up separately to handle the cases trespass could not reach — the tannery upwind, the mill dam that flooded upstream land, the noise from a neighbouring trade. Because nothing crossed the boundary, there was no entry to sue on, and the law had to develop a standard about the reasonableness of competing uses instead.
The tree statute is the local addition, and it is old. Trees were valuable and easily taken, the loss was hard to price after the fact, and the temptation to clear a line and apologise later was considerable. Trebling changed the arithmetic, and the good-faith exception kept it from punishing honest surveying errors. Glavin added the modern refinement by allowing restoration cost as the measure, which reflects that a mature tree's value to a homeowner has little to do with its effect on an appraisal.
Common questions
Can I sue if my neighbour cut down my trees?
Yes, and G.L. c. 242 § 7 trebles the damages for wilful cutting without licence — unless the neighbour had good reason to believe the land was theirs.
How are tree damages measured?
By the diminution in the property's value, or by the cost of restoration where that is reasonable — which for mature trees can be far larger.
Can I cut branches that hang over my yard?
Yes, back to the property line, at your own cost. Massachusetts gives no cause of action for overhanging branches or intruding roots.
Is my neighbour's noise a nuisance?
Only if it substantially and unreasonably interferes with your use and enjoyment, judged against the character of the area.
How long do I have to sue?
Three years. A continuing trespass or nuisance gives a fresh claim as it continues.
Can I get an order making them stop?
Yes. An injunction is often the main remedy, particularly for an encroachment or an ongoing discharge.