Renting a House - Should I Pay to get a Tree Removed?

Short version:

We're renting a house that we'd probably like to eventually buy. There is a tree next to the house that gives critters access to the roof and chimney to cause damages. Landlord is going to pay for some tree trimming, but does not want to pay to have this tree removed entirely. Should we offer to cover that ourselves now because we'd eventually want it done if/when we buy the house?

Long version:

The baroness and I are living in a nice house that we are leasing. We like the place and I plan to buy it from the owners (which they are agreeable to). This got put on hold due to my current situation of under-employment. (It's a long story that I can't give full details on due to an NDA.)

We have recently had issues with a raccoon family nesting in the attic. They've caused damage to the chimney and the roof to give themselves access to the attic. The raccoons are using a tree that is right next to the house as a ladder to the roof. The damage and tree trimming is going to cost the landlord 4-figures.

The landlord is going to pay for tree trimming, but does not want to pay the cost to get the whole tree removed. If we want to keep critters off the roof, we'd need to remove the tree entirely. They're climbing the trunk, not the branches.

Since we're thinking we'll probably buy this house (soooo much easier than moving) but not 100% sure, we're considering telling the landlord to get the quote for removing the tree and just pay the difference ourselves between having it trimmed and removed. We'd have to pay it anyway if/when we buy the house.

So WWGRMD? We know it's not on us to pay for it, but would it be wise if we're leaning strongly (say 90% probability) in favor of buying the house?

I imagine it's more involved than this, but there's no way to do the work yourself?

Depends on what it would cost.

I'm guessing the hive's overall answer is to not pay it and ask the landlord again to pay for it. With that being said, considering all the facts and assuming that it would be cheaper overall to have the tree service guy come once, I would consider paying for it if it were me.

I've paid for things as a tenant that I shouldn't have, but I try to treat others property as if it were mine.

You don't have a mortgage on it. You don't have anything written. You don't have any stake in this. Just keep complaining to the landlord about the problem to get him to fix it.

You don't own it. Don't pay for something that you may not get any benefit out of. What if your wife got transferred to (insert town here)? It could happen.

If you don't mind parting with the money, pay for it.

You are paying to protect someone else's property. If that's OK, then you're good.

There are a lot of ways you could push them, all of which could lead to them being unwilling to sell to you.

You might be able to spin it as a positive...

How about if you had a signed option to purchase that included the value of the tree removal would be applied to your down payment (assuming you close the deal)?

As a landlord, I would say this is clearly the landlord's responsibility.

Removing a tree around here ranges from $600 to $800.

As a landlord, I would do it to protect my investment in the house repairs.

If I were renting, I would not pay for it.

Ashyukun wrote: I imagine it's more involved than this, but there's no way to do the work yourself?

No way. Tree trunk is less than a foot from the house. I would not know how to cut it down to prevent it from doing damage. Suspect it will require professional equipment and skill.

When would you be planning to make the move to purchase the house? You could negotiate that the tree will be removed before you close on the house.

Or, if it's going to be a while, offer to have it taken down yourself in return for a $100 credit against your rent over the next 6 or 8 months.

I really think the landlord aught to just pony up to pay for it themselves. Other critters will do damage if they don't. I'm not sure how best to push for that without being difficult and making them less likely to work with us.

T.J. wrote: I'm guessing the hive's overall answer is to not pay it and ask the landlord again to pay for it. With that being said, considering all the facts and assuming that it would be cheaper overall to have the tree service guy come once, I would consider paying for it if it were me.

This is exactly my line of thinking. Especially since trimming it will cost money too, and I'd only offer to pay the difference between trimming and removal.

SVreX wrote: You might be able to spin it as a positive... How about if you had a signed option to purchase that included the value of the tree removal would be applied to your down payment (assuming you close the deal)?

That's something else I'd thought of. Get an agreement in writing that if/when we purchase the cost of removing this tree gets applied to that. And be sure to document how much removal of this tree ends up costing.

Have the rest of the tree taken down on your nickel if the cost is acceptable, it's cheaper for the tree service to unload all their E36 M3 once and allot manpower for service and cleanup than to trim one time and return later for the trunk and stump. BTDT.

Ask the owner to cut you a break on purchase down the road as you have improved their property on your own nickel. If they're decent they'll cut you some kinda break.

wae wrote: When would you be planning to make the move to purchase the house? You could negotiate that the tree will be removed before you close on the house. Or, if it's going to be a while, offer to have it taken down yourself in return for a $100 credit against your rent over the next 6 or 8 months.

I don't know when. It is entirely dependent on when this deal closes to start up the new project I'm working on (NDA prevents giving more details). That timeline is uncertain and not under my control. I could be getting the ball rolling in as little as 1 month. Or it might be 6 months, 12 months, or never. Most likely getting the ball rolling in terms of inspection, appraisal, and financing in 2-4 months.

Offering to pay now and getting that deducted from the rent could work.

In reply to Beer Baron:

When we were renting that is what we did. I would fix things around the condo and we would deduct the cost from the rent, with prior approval of course.

Rusted_Busted_Spit wrote: In reply to Beer Baron: When we were renting that is what we did. I would fix things around the condo and we would deduct the cost from the rent, with prior approval of course.

That is common practice for us. I generally handle small repairs and they agree to deduct cost of materials plus a bit extra for my labor from the next rent check. I'm sure I've saved them a healthy chunk of change because my labor rate is a lot cheaper than calling a handyman or plumber.

You answered my question. The trunk only 1' away from the house is a deal breaker, it's got to go. Your landlord should pay for the removal as a tree that close will continue to cause problems ($$$$) to his property. Critters, bugs, and (most expensively) damage to the foundation from the root system.

If it's a cash flow problem for him, I'd offer to pay it up front and take the amount off the rent over the next X months but it's his responsibility and it's necessary work.

I think it's premature to start paying for things like that. I'd let the landlord handle things however they want. If the squirrels return and damage the house again then your offer, if or when you make it will reflect the current condition of the house.

With the tree that close to the house, there is no question the tree has to go, and it is hard to fathom that the owner doesn't understand that. He is paying to fix damage to the house that will just recur.

I'm also a bit irked because they seem to think that we weren't paying attention to things and allowing damages to happen. We let them know about the raccoon damage as soon as we saw it. We told them a year ago that the trees around the house seriously needed to be trimmed.

trucke wrote: As a landlord, I would say this is clearly the landlord's responsibility. Removing a tree around here ranges from $600 to $800. As a landlord, I would do it to protect my investment in the house repairs. If I were renting, I would not pay for it.

since OP isn't all that far from me in the same state, i'm going to say what you are paying is around 5-6x less than what this tree is going to cost to get removed. sounds like crane and a large skilled crew work, not cut it and let it fall work.

it's up to you if you want to pay for it. as a landlord i'd be inclined to get it removed myself if it's causing damage to my house. looking at the bottom line of having a tree removed near the structure and realizing how many months of rent profit it eats will make landlord ill most likely and they want to take the cheap way out. i think you're being a good tenant offering to pay the difference between trimming and removal. my current issue is there is a tree on the property next to my rental that is causing issues, and the owners could not care less. trying to figure out ways to covertly kill a 4 foot diameter maple tree so they have to deal with it. i'm just going to take it straight up from the property line this summer.

It's not your decision to make. If the landlord wants it there and you whack it down, you're liable.

If it pissed you off that bad just move.

The tree isn't that big. It's a birch tree with 3 trunks about 6"-9" in diameter. I don't actually know what would be required to remove it safely. I just know that it is a bigger job than I could handle myself.

I'm not pissed off about the tree. I know I'm not liable. I just see that removing it now would save money over removing it later, assuming we plan to buy.

I am a bit irritated that the landlords seem to be taking their (understandable) frustration over the cost of dealing with these raccoons and are trying to shift the blame to us rather than accepting that it happened because they didn't look into taking care of these sooner. Not overly bothered. People do that sort of stuff all the time.

I'm rethinking this...

You haven't said if the landlord is going to do the repairs to the roof and chimney. That's important- those are the only actual property maintenance violations. A raccoon or squirrel in your living space is a health hazard.

If he fixes the roof and chimney but fails to remove the tree, that's his problem. He might be fixing the roof and chimney again later. He could also (likely) be risking foundation damage- his choice.

Note, some of the potential "fixes" he could consider you might not like. For example, he could choose to remove a non-functional chimney instead of fixing it.

Will it substantially improve your life while costing you an amount of money that does little or no harm to your overall financial picture?

Then just pay it. If it were me, I'd pay for it just to avoid the hassle of dealing with any future problems that it causes later - your time is worth money.

In reply to SVreX:

Landlord is going to do repairs to roof and chimney. The chimney looks like it will be pretty strait-forward. It's a chimney over a gas fireplace. Repair should just be a chunk of plywood with some siding over it.

It is definitely the landlord's problem if they don't remove the tree and it does more damage later.

This is only an issue because I am so strongly considering buying the house. I would be doing this to save the cost of tree removal and repairing critter damage in the future if/when I buy. Unless we can just include the cost of removing that tree in the list of maintenance the house needs that gets deducted from the final purchase price.