A construction project can become an expensive dispute when work crosses a property boundary. In Oregon, a landowner alleged that workers clearing an adjoining parcel removed trees, shrubs and other plants from as much as 150 feet inside his property. A jury found that the timber trespass was intentional and awarded him $810,000 in treble damages.In an opinion dated April 8, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Butori v. Bosma, case number A181266. The decision, available on Justia, rejected challenges to the evidence and to Henry Bosma’s personal liability. The court found sufficient evidence that he personally directed or caused the clearing.
Construction clearing crossed the property line
The dispute involved adjoining properties known as Government Lots 6 and 7. Tom Butori owned Lot 6, while Bosma Enterprises Inc. (in which Bosma had an ownership interest) owned Lot 7. Butori alleged that Bosma hired VB Construction in 2018 to carry out work on the neighbouring property.During the work, trees, shrubs and other plants were removed from an area Butori said belonged to him, extending approximately 150 feet beyond the boundary. The defendants disputed where the property line lay and presented competing evidence. The jury found in Butori’s favour and determined that the timber trespass was willful or intentional. Oregon law allows treble damages when someone willfully or intentionally cuts, injures or removes trees or shrubs from another person’s land. The judgment awarded Butori $810,000.
Earlier settlement helped establish knowledge
On appeal, Bosma and Bosma Enterprises raised three challenges. They first argued that the trial court had improperly allowed Butori to testify about his understanding of the boundary after meeting the county surveyor.The appeals court noted that the trial judge had stopped Butori when he began repeating what the surveyor had told him. But his later testimony concerned his own belief about the boundary, based partly on his observations and the meeting. Because he did not repeat an out-of-court statement by the surveyor, the testimony was not hearsay. The defendants also challenged evidence of an earlier timber trespass settlement between the same parties involving the general area near the disputed boundary. They argued that it could lead jurors to assume they had admitted fault.The trial court admitted the agreement for a limited purpose: showing that Bosma knew the boundary was disputed, which could help jurors decide whether the later clearing was intentional or accidental. The judge removed the amount paid under the earlier settlement and instructed jurors not to treat the agreement as proof of liability. The appeals court found no error in that decision.
Court found Bosma could be personally liable
The defendants’ final argument was that there was insufficient evidence to hold Bosma personally responsible, rather than the company that owned the neighbouring property. The appeals court explained that a person is not automatically protected from liability for their own actions merely because they act through a business. The evidence had to allow the jury to find that Bosma personally directed or caused the clearing.A surveyor testified that Bosma had hired him in 2011 to prepare a topographical map for work near the property line. During an on-site discussion, the surveyor warned him to stay within the right of way, but described Bosma as dismissive of his understanding of the boundary. The surveyor also testified that Bosma hired him again in 2018 to document clearing that had already taken place. Based on an earlier survey, the witness located that clearing on Butori’s property. The appeals court said the jury could reasonably infer that Bosma personally caused the clearing and acted intentionally.
$810,000 award remains in place
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, leaving the $810,000 treble-damages award intact. The decision relied on the jury’s finding that the trespass was willful or intentional and evidence that Bosma knew the boundary was disputed before the 2018 work. The ruling rejected all three challenges and preserved Butori’s award.
