Home devaluation over 15%

Good Morning,
We purchased our home on the Rappahannock River with a full view of the river. ( pictured proof). We have an unruly neighbor that is allowing sumac trees to grow up to a point they are at least 12ft now and growing. this has taken about 3/4 of our view away and according to our realtor has devalued our property by over 15%s on a home that is valued at around 750K. Our president of the HOA has approached them twice and we have approached them also about cutting the sumac trees down to at least 4ft to give us back the view and our home valve. which they have refused. We have asked the President of the HOA for a special board meeting to discuss these trees and have been refused: he states he cannot change the covenants and doesn't plan on further pursuing making this homeowner cut down the trees. So we are at a time know that when they continue to grow not only will we lose all of our views the neighbor to our right will also lose his. What would be a legal recourse I have to get my view and property value back if the HOA refuses to do anything.

You need to talk to a lawyer who understands HOA and property law.

The board president is correct that he can't change the CC&Rs himself - and if there isn't anything in them restricting tree height, then the neighbor isn't doing anything wrong. You could argue that he's being a selfish jerk, but that's a different issue.

I'm not an expert in this stuff by a long shot. But from what I remember of some court cases, the outcomes have varied between "trees grow, too bad, so sad" to requiring the owner who is now blocking the view to remove the obstacle. Hit or miss, in other words. You'll have to decide if this issue is worth paying what you'll have to pay in order to get it resolved, with the understanding that it may not be resolved in your favor.

If this view is important, I would approach the owner of the sumac trees and see if he is willing to sell you a view easement to permenantly protect your view. You would pay him for the easement and pay an attorney to draft the agreement and then record it with the county. The owner of the sumac trees is not required to grant you an easement and may opt not to for any price.

Yup. The term "property value" is subjective - what's important to you may not necessarily be important to a potential buyer. Too many things go onto what makes "property values" go up and down, so it would be interesting to see how the realtor arrived at that conclusion. I'm not saying he or she is wrong, but what do you do if two or three more come up with completely different opinions as to whether the trees are a deal maker or breaker?

I concur with everyone else who suggested talking to this homeowner about paying to cut the trees down or at least prune them to where you'll get your view. After that, you'll have to decide if this is worth throwing hands in court and what you will need to prove your property values dipped 15% (and you'll need more than the realtor's statement).

I agree with those who suggest trying to work with the Owners of the trees, using your own funds if necessary. If not cored by your HOA docs and DO read them, your HOA has no role here.

Having been a realtor long, long ago, for 5 years in two communities where ocean views were possible, hones with such view definitely sold for more than those without. I'd say 15% is about right depending on other factors.But as pointed out here, not all buyers are looking for view homes. Still if water view are possible and someone wants one, they will not even look at a home without.

Oh, yes, I do agree, Cathy, that real or not loss of value wouldn't help this owner in court. Especially so if the tree-one is doing nothing illegal or against local building codes.

ADD ON

I found this from a past post:

Section 16. [AMENDED] Maintenance of Tree and Plant Height (Affects Lots in THE ESTATES Only). On Lots which have a ridge height limitation as set forth in Section 15 in this Article XII, no trees, shrubs, hedges, or plants of any kind over six (6) feet high may be allowed to block the view of Mount Rainier or The Cascades or the valley floor for those upslope or adjacent Lots which would be adversely affected by such vegetation. If any tree, plant, hedge, etc., grows above six (6) feet high and partially or completely blocks said views from any of these affected Lots, the Owners of Lots whose view is blocked may, at their expense, trim said trees, plants, etc., down to a level that is not blocking their view, but in any event not less than six (6) feet in height. However, any other damage and/or liability incurred by the trimming and removal of slash from trees or plants shall not be waived. All work must be accomplished in a neat and clean manner by a licensed and bonded contractor and all landscaping returned to its original condition. Furthermore, prior to any such trimming action by the affected Owner, the Owner on whose Lot the vegetation exists shall first be notified in writing, and the timing for the activity shall be coordinated to accommodate each Owner involved. In the event of any dispute, both Owners shall present their case to the Committee, and the Committee shall decide whether the vegetation should be trimmed or not.

Check with your County.

There may be county codes that help your issue.

Also see:
Homeowners' Right to Views; Contrary to popular belief, most homeowners do not have a right to their view. From Nolo