Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 2510 (2026)

Unlawful cutting of trees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Unlawful cutting.  Any person who in fact cuts down or fells any tree without the consent of the owner of the property on which the tree stands commits a civil violation for which the forfeitures provided in this section may be adjudged. Proof of a culpable state of mind is not required. The cutting down or felling of any tree by the following are exempt from this section:  
A. The Department of Transportation in the performance of activities under Title 23, section 701;   [PL 1981, c. 355 (NEW).]
B. Public utilities in maintaining adequate facilities in emergencies in compliance with Title 35-A, section 301; and   [PL 1997, c. 152, §1 (AMD).]
C. Municipal employees, persons contracting with a municipality or other legitimate agents of a municipality acting within the course and scope of their employment or performing volunteer work for the municipality removing street trees or blown down trees or in emergencies.   [PL 1997, c. 152, §1 (AMD).]
D.   [PL 1997, c. 152, §1 (RP).]
[PL 1997, c. 152, §1 (AMD).]
2.  Forfeitures.  The following forfeitures may be adjudged for each tree over 2 inches in diameter that has been cut or felled:  
A. If the tree is no more than 6 inches in diameter, a forfeiture of $25;   [PL 1981, c. 355 (NEW).]
B. If the tree is over 6 inches and up to 10 inches in diameter, a forfeiture of $50;   [PL 1997, c. 152, §2 (AMD).]
C. If the tree is over 10 inches and up to 14 inches in diameter, a forfeiture of $75;   [PL 1997, c. 152, §2 (AMD).]
D. If the tree is over 14 inches and up to 18 inches in diameter, a forfeiture of $100;   [PL 1997, c. 152, §2 (AMD).]
E. If the tree is over 18 inches and up to 22 inches in diameter, a forfeiture of $125; and   [PL 1997, c. 152, §2 (AMD).]
F. If the tree is greater than 22 inches in diameter, a forfeiture of $150.   [PL 1981, c. 355 (NEW).]
[PL 1997, c. 152, §2 (AMD).]
3.  Diameter.  For the purposes of determining the forfeiture, the diameter of a tree shall be the diameter of the tree stump remaining or the diameter of the tree at 4 1/2 feet from the ground if the remaining stump is higher than that distance.  
[PL 1981, c. 355 (NEW).]
4.  Restitution.  The court shall inquire of the prosecutor or the owner of the property on which the tree was cut down or felled the extent of the owner's financial loss. With the owner's consent, the court shall order restitution when appropriate on the basis of an adequate factual foundation. The order of restitution must designate the amount of restitution to be paid and the person or persons to whom the restitution must be paid. Restitution ordered under this subsection is in addition to any forfeitures adjudged under subsection 2; except that at the request of the prosecutor, the court may suspend all or a portion of the forfeiture adjudged under subsection 2 and apply it to restitution to the property owner under this section.  
Any restitution ordered and paid must be deducted from the amount of any judgment awarded in a civil action brought by the owner against the offender based on the same facts.  
[PL 2003, c. 540, §1 (AMD).]
5.  Liability for conduct of another.  A person commits the civil violation in subsection 1 even if the person did not personally cut down or fell the tree if the person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person who violates subsection 1. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person if:  
A. The person causes another person to violate subsection 1; or   [PL 1997, c. 152, §3 (NEW).]
B. The person solicits another person to commit the civil violation or aids, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing the civil violation.   [PL 1997, c. 152, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 1997, c. 152, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1981, c. 355 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 10 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 141, §B14 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 450, §5 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 152, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 540, §1 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 2002–2017 · leading case: Fuschetti v. Murray, 2006 ME 100 (Me. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fuschetti v. Murray, 2006 ME 100 (Me. 2006). · cites it 7× “1 Thereafter, the State also brought an action against Murray pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2510 (2005), 2 and, in partial resolution of the State’s action, Murray was required to *850 pay, and paid, $5306 in restitution to Fus-chetti.”
Wood v. Bell, 902 A.2d 843 (Me. 2006). · cites it 4× “The expert then multiplied that value by the square footage of the cleared area to arrive at the forfeiture value for the disputed parcel.”
Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 ME 34 (Me. 2006). · cites it 3× “At the request of the Dionnes, employees of the Maine Forest Service tallied the stumps and calculated the statutory forfeiture amount pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2510(2) (2005). 1 The Dionnes filed a complaint *926 against the LeClercs in August 2001, seeking statutory timber…”
Stockly v. Doil, 870 A.2d 1208 (Me. 2005). “The forfeiture value of the trees, pursuant to 17 M.R.S.A. § 2510(2) (1983 & Supp.2004), was $59,525.”
Bray v. Grindle, 2002 ME 130 (Me. 2002). “Warren testified at length on the extent of the damage, stating that the average tree-to-tree width of the road was now forty feet; that he counted 468 stumps with a forfeiture value pursuant to 17 M.R.S.A. § 2510 (1983 & Supp. 2001) of $15,925; and that cleaning up and…”
McLaughlin v. Emera Maine (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 7552; 17 M.R.S. § 2510. 87. Section 7552 provides for damages as follows: .”
Fuschetti v. Murray (Me. Super. Ct 2005). · cites it 4× “§§7552(3)(A) & (B), damages may be sought in the alternative for (1) value of the lost trees (stumpage value), (2) loss in the overall value of the property, or (3) forfeiture value under 17 M.R.S.A. §2510. In the court’s view, the cost of replanting trees and restoring the…”
Hanson v. Jiorle (Me. Super. Ct 2002). · cites it 3× “§ 7552(2) & (3) is limited to the forfeiture amounts provided in 17 M.R.S.A. § 2510(2) & (3). Title 17 M.R.S.”
Stockly v. Doil (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “SF 9 82; see 17 M.R.S. § 2510(2) (2003). The cost to restore the Stockly Property, as near as practicable, to its pre-casualty condition is approximately $370,000, comprised of (a) $35,750 to clean up the debris and slash left behind from the timber harvesting, (b) $330,000 to…”
Ross v. Raynor (Me. Super. Ct 2003). “Here, the plaintiffs have elected to seek the forfeiture amounts allowed under 17 M.R.S.A. § 2510 rather that the market value of the trees that were cut or destroyed.”
Oliveira v. Pell-Mull (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “4 Additionally, when regeneration damages are claimed, the plaintiff is entitled to recover forfeiture amounts determined by 17 M.R.S.A. §2510. See 14 M.R.S.A. § 7552.”
Boothby v. Dunnells (Me. Super. Ct 2013). “" 17 M.R.S. § 2510 (2012). The Court finds that Defendant did in fact cut down trees from the property of Plaintiff without permission.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 2510(1) — 1 case
McLaughlin v. Emera Maine (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “§ 7552; 17 M.R.S. § 2510. 87. Section 7552 provides for damages as follows: .”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 2510(2) — 7 cases
Dionne v. LeClerc, 2006 ME 34 (Me. 2006). “At the request of the Dionnes, employees of the Maine Forest Service tallied the stumps and calculated the statutory forfeiture amount pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2510(2) (2005). 1 The Dionnes filed a complaint *926 against the LeClercs in August 2001, seeking statutory timber…”
Wood v. Bell, 902 A.2d 843 (Me. 2006). “The expert then multiplied that value by the square footage of the cleared area to arrive at the forfeiture value for the disputed parcel.”
Fuschetti v. Murray, 2006 ME 100 (Me. 2006). “1 Thereafter, the State also brought an action against Murray pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2510 (2005), 2 and, in partial resolution of the State’s action, Murray was required to *850 pay, and paid, $5306 in restitution to Fus-chetti.”
Stockly v. Doil, 870 A.2d 1208 (Me. 2005). “The forfeiture value of the trees, pursuant to 17 M.R.S.A. § 2510(2) (1983 & Supp.2004), was $59,525.”
Hanson v. Jiorle (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “§ 7552(2) & (3) is limited to the forfeiture amounts provided in 17 M.R.S.A. § 2510(2) & (3). Title 17 M.R.S.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 2510(3) — 1 case
Wood v. Bell, 902 A.2d 843 (Me. 2006). “The expert then multiplied that value by the square footage of the cleared area to arrive at the forfeiture value for the disputed parcel.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17, § 2510(4) — 1 case
Fuschetti v. Murray, 2006 ME 100 (Me. 2006). “1 Thereafter, the State also brought an action against Murray pursuant to 17 M.R.S. § 2510 (2005), 2 and, in partial resolution of the State’s action, Murray was required to *850 pay, and paid, $5306 in restitution to Fus-chetti.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.