[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

You can't make someone pay the tree fine if the trees are not on their property and there is no proof they cut them down or had them cut down. I think it is called circumstantial evidence. The circumstances make it look like so and so happened. But the burden of proof is not met. I don't know, I am not a lawyer and I haven't ever sued anyone or been sued or broke any law that I know of. I did break the speed limit law and got caught twice and admitted I did it, but I wasn't drinking...... and I try to stay away from lawyers except at family gatherings

If they didn't have laws like that folks would be going around saying it looks like you did it...your fanny is going to jail. That is the reason we have the law of the land.

Unfortunately it protects the innocent and the guilty.

I need coffee. Probably this is all wrong.

I mean, I know it is all wrong for people to hack down trees and their town gets fined and they don't have to be in the soup personally.

Good morning everyone. It's gonna be another beautiful day in The Villages.

Gracie -- I know you can't make these four residences pay for the fine and new plantings. But I still think to depose these owners is a good idea.

I just wonder how it's "determined" who pays in some of these instances? What is the deciding factor? Just like residents south of 466 have to pay for the erosion under the bridge, as though no one north of the bridge or non residents don't use the bridge. In my mind, that is stupidity at its finest!