Nantucket homeowner accused of cutting down more than 16 mature trees on a neighbour’s property to improve his ocean view; trust claims replacement costs exceed $486,000 | World News

A Nantucket homeowner has been accused of cutting down more than 16 mature trees on a neighbour’s property to improve the ocean view from his own home. Patricia R. Belford, trustee of the Belford Family Trust, filed a civil complaint against Jonathan Jacoby in Nantucket Superior Court on June 23, 2025. The dispute concerns land at 1 Tautemo Way. The trees had been planted by the family in the 1970s.According to a complaint filed in Nantucket Superior Court on June 23, 2025, Jacoby entered the property on or about February 22, 2025, without permission and cut down the trees. The filing says they provided privacy, shade, and a buffer from road noise. Belford is seeking compensatory and statutory damages, including treble damages, as well as relief for alleged emotional distress.

Complaint alleges homeowner cut down more than 16 trees on neighbour’s land

The complaint alleges that Jacoby entered the Belford Property on or about February 22, 2025, and cut down more than 16 mature trees without notice or permission from Belford.It says he crossed the driveway before reaching the south or southwest portion of the land, where the trees were located. The filing identifies the trees as cedar, cherry, and Leyland Cypress, many of which were over 30 feet in height and decades old.It states that they formed a natural barrier between the home and Hummock Pond Road. According to the complaint, the trees also provided shade, aesthetic value, privacy, and noise mitigation.

How did the homeowner allegedly benefit from removing his neighbour’s trees

The complaint claims Jacoby cut the trees to improve the ocean view from his home at 3 Tautemo Way. It says he listed that property for sale with a description promoting its ‘sweeping view of the Atlantic Ocean’. According to the filing, that wording had not appeared in earlier listings.Belford alleges Jacoby did not obtain written or verbal consent from her or anyone authorised to act for the trust. The complaint says the trees had been planted by the Belford family in the 1970s and maintained for nearly five decades.It states that their removal eliminated the property’s only natural buffer to Hummock Pond Road and left the home exposed to the street.

What did police find after investigating the alleged tree cutting

The complaint says the property manager discovered the damage and contacted the Nantucket Police Department. It identifies Officer George Haddad as the investigator and refers to a statement from Jacoby’s former landscaper, Krasimir Kirilov.In the statement included with the filing, Kirilov, of Challenge Landscaping, said in a recorded statement that Jacoby had cut down the trees. The complaint states that police gathered photographs and damage assessments and concluded Jacoby knowingly entered the property and cut the trees for personal benefit. It adds that an associated criminal proceeding remained active when the civil complaint was filed. The police report was numbered 25-002014, according to the complaint.

Complaint puts tree replacement cost above $486,000

The complaint cites an estimate from Surfing Hydrangea Nursery for one comparable Leyland Cypress measuring at least 30 feet tall. The estimate put the cost to purchase and transport one comparable Leyland Cypress of at least 30 feet at $22,114.06. It did not include planting or installation costs, which the complaint says would require a specialised contractor.The filing states that replacement costs for the removed trees alone exceeded $486,000. It also claims the loss reduced the property’s value and character and increased exposure to road noise, light and loss of privacy. Belford seeks compensatory and treble damages, emotional-distress and punitive damages, and an order barring Jacoby from trespassing.Disclaimer: This article is based on a civil complaint filed in Nantucket Superior Court on June 23, 2025. The Times of India has not independently verified the allegations, the circumstances surrounding the removal of the trees, or the estimated replacement costs mentioned in the complaint. The claims have not been established as findings of the court.