Clearing 150 Feet Onto a Neighbor's Property Costs $810,000: An Oregon Timber Trespass Case
Summary of Butori v. Bosma: Treble Damages for Willful Timber Trespass Under ORS 105.810
In April 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld an $810,000 treble-damages award against a neighboring landowner and its president after a jury found they had willfully cleared trees, shrubs, and plants roughly 150 feet onto the plaintiff's property. The case turned on a disputed property line, and it shows how a prior boundary disagreement, a surveyor's warnings, and a business owner's own decisions can add up to a large and personal liability.
Case Background: A Cleared Boundary and a Timber Trespass Claim
Tom Butori and the Bosma business owned adjacent parcels, identified in the case as government Lots 6 and 7. Henry "Hank" Bosma was the company's president.
In 2018, Bosma hired a construction company to do work on the company's property. In the course of that work, the crew cleared trees, shrubs, and plants in an area roughly 150 feet beyond the property line, on Butori's land. Butori sued for timber trespass.
The defense was that the cleared area was not actually on Butori's property, and both sides put on competing evidence of where the boundary sat. The jury sided with Butori and found that the trespass was willful or intentional. Under Oregon's timber trespass statute, ORS 105.810, a willful or intentional trespass triggers treble (triple) damages, and the resulting award came to $810,000.
The Appeal: Three Challenges, All Rejected
The defendants raised three arguments on appeal, and the Court of Appeals rejected each one.
1. Was the plaintiff's testimony about the property line hearsay? Butori testified that he had come to believe the line ran where a particular map showed it, based on physical markers he observed, including a brass survey cap and a marker post, and on a meeting with the county surveyor. The defense argued this quietly smuggled the surveyor's out-of-court statements into the trial. The court disagreed. Butori testified to his own belief, not to anything the surveyor said, so the testimony was not hearsay.
2. Should the jury have heard about a prior settlement? These same parties had a previous timber trespass dispute over the same general area, and they had settled it. The trial court allowed the jury to see a redacted copy of that settlement agreement. The defense argued that the rules of evidence bar using a settlement against a party. The court held that the agreement was not offered to prove liability but for a different purpose, to show that Bosma already knew the property line was in dispute, which bears on whether this later clearing was willful rather than accidental. To keep the jury from inferring that paying to settle meant admitting fault, the judge redacted the dollar amount and gave a limiting instruction. That was within the court's discretion.
3. Could the company's president be held personally liable? Bosma argued that because a business entity owned the lot, he could not be personally on the hook. The court explained that a business owner is not shielded from liability for his own wrongful acts. The evidence that Bosma personally directed the work was substantial. He hired the surveyor and the crews. He told his surveyor he intended to clear the area, and when the surveyor cautioned him to stay within the right of way, he was dismissive about where the line was. Bosma later hired that same surveyor to document the clearing, and the surveyor testified that the cleared area was on Butori's lot. From that, a jury could reasonably find that Bosma personally and willfully caused the trespass.
What the Court of Appeals Held
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The $810,000 award stands.
The plaintiff's testimony about the property line reflected his own belief and was not hearsay.
The prior settlement agreement was admissible to show knowledge of the boundary dispute, and therefore willfulness, with the amount redacted and a limiting instruction to the jury.
There was enough evidence that the president personally and intentionally caused the clearing to hold him individually liable.
Legal Implications for Property Owners and Tree Professionals
Willfulness is what triples the damages. An ordinary timber trespass is costly, but a willful or intentional one is trebled, and evidence that the cutter knew the boundary was disputed can be exactly what proves willfulness.
A prior dispute can come back around. Because these parties had already fought over this same boundary, the earlier settlement helped show that the later clearing was no innocent mistake.
Business owners are not shielded for their own acts. Owning the land through a company did not protect the president once the evidence showed he personally directed the clearing.
Surveys and boundary evidence carry the day. Physical markers, survey work, and testimony about the line were central to both liability and the size of the award.
Protecting Yourself in a Boundary and Tree-Cutting Dispute
Confirm the property line before anyone clears or cuts. A current survey is the single best way to avoid a timber trespass claim, and brushing off a surveyor's caution is the kind of fact that helps prove willfulness.
Take an unresolved boundary disagreement seriously. If you already know a line is contested, clearing near it before settling the question is a real risk.
If your trees or land have been cleared, document the boundary and the damage. Survey markers, photographs, and a qualified expert's valuation all matter to what you can prove and recover.
Dealing with a property line or timber trespass dispute? Contact us today at (213) 293-9401 or derek@dsimpsonlegal.com to schedule a consultation and understand your options.
Case citation: Butori v. Bosma, 348 Or. App. 278 (2026), 2026 WL 948717.