A $310,000 Award for Cutting Down a Neighbor's Trees Stands on Appeal: A Massachusetts Tree Law Case
Summary of Baillargeon v. Lennon: Treble Damages for Willful Tree Trespass Under G.L. c. 242, § 7
In March 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a $310,000 judgment against a landowner who cut down or damaged trees on his neighbors' property. Most of that figure came from treble (triple) damages for willful trespass to trees. The decision is a useful look at how these awards are built, how much a qualified arborist's testimony can matter, and how easily a defendant can lose the fight on appeal by failing to raise the right arguments at trial.
Case Background: A Tree-Cutting Dispute Between Neighbors
David and Lori Baillargeon filed a Superior Court action against their neighbor, Mathew Lennon, alleging that he had cut down or damaged trees on their land and had placed encroachments on their property. Both sides represented themselves at the jury trial.
The jury found for the Baillargeons. The resulting judgment against Lennon totaled $310,000:
$100,000 for damage to the trees, trebled to $300,000 under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 242, section 7, which allows treble damages for willful trespass to trees.
$10,000 for two encroachments on the land, a building addition and a construction trailer.
The Appeal: A Defendant's Best Arguments Come Too Late
Lennon retained counsel for the appeal and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings that (1) he was the one who cut the trees and (2) the trespass and encroachments caused the damages the jury awarded.
The obstacle was procedural. Lennon never moved for a directed verdict at trial, which meant he had not preserved those arguments. That narrowed the appeals court's review sharply. Rather than weighing whether the evidence was strong enough, the court could ask only whether there was any evidence at all supporting the jury's findings, and could step in only to prevent a "manifest injustice."
What the Evidence Showed
On who did the cutting: Mrs. Baillargeon testified that she saw a man hanging from a rope and using a chainsaw to cut branches on their property. Lennon himself testified that he had used a chainsaw and cut many piles of logs, and that he had logs removed that he believed had fallen onto his house. Taken together, the court found this was "some evidence" that Lennon caused the damage.
On the tree damages: the Baillargeons' tree expert, an arborist, testified that a replacement-value list for the damaged trees totaled $109,000 and that those figures were reasonable and in the ballpark. The jury's $100,000 single-damages figure lined up closely with the expert's number.
On the encroachments: the jury awarded a combined $10,000 for the addition and the trailer. Because the special verdict slip did not break that figure out by encroachment, and because there was evidence that removing the addition would cost more than a nominal amount, the court could not say the $10,000 was unsupported.
What the Appeals Court Held
The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment. The full $310,000 stands.
On the sufficiency arguments: because Lennon failed to preserve them at trial, the court reviewed only for an "absolute dearth" of evidence, and it found evidence supporting each of the jury's findings.
On the jury instructions: Lennon had not objected at trial, cited no authority that the omitted instructions had to be given without a request, and showed no real likelihood of a more favorable outcome. The court found no manifest injustice.
On the closing argument: Lennon had not objected at trial, and his own closing had prompted the judge to instruct him to stick to the evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard statements not based on the evidence, so no relief was warranted.
On the expert testimony: Lennon's motion to exclude the arborist rested only on the late disclosure of the expert's identity, and the substance of the testimony had been described the same way in the plaintiffs' earlier and later filings. The court found no abuse of discretion.
Legal Implications for Property Owners and Tree Professionals
Treble damages make tree trespass expensive. A $100,000 tree loss became a $300,000 liability once the jury found the cutting was willful.
Expert valuation carries real weight. A qualified arborist's replacement-value analysis is often what turns a claim into a specific number a jury can award.
What happens at trial controls the appeal. Lennon's strongest arguments were effectively unreviewable because he had not raised them properly while the case was still before the trial judge.
Self-representation is risky in these disputes. Both sides tried the case themselves, and the defendant's procedural missteps at trial were what ultimately sank his appeal.
Protecting Yourself in a Tree-Cutting Dispute
Bring in a qualified arborist early to document and value the loss. Replacement-value analysis is central to what you can recover.
Keep clear records of who did what and when. Witness accounts, photographs, and dated observations all mattered here.
Take trial procedure seriously. Preserving arguments and objecting at the right moments can be the difference between an error a court will correct and one it will never reach. This is where experienced counsel earns its keep.
Facing a tree or boundary dispute with a neighbor? Contact us today at (213) 293-9401 or derek@dsimpsonlegal.com to schedule a consultation and understand your options.
Case citation: Baillargeon v. Lennon, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 1124, 2026 WL 585754. This is an unpublished summary decision issued under Appeals Court Rule 23.0, citable for its persuasive value but not as binding precedent.