US couple awarded thousands of dollars after logging crew cuts more than 1,000 trees from their Mississippi land; how photos, stump records and a survey helped them win

A timber-harvesting operation in Mississippi turned into a property dispute after a logging company working on neighbouring land crossed the wrong boundary and cut 1,299 trees from another couple’s property, as per a TOI report. Gerald and Rhonda Smith documented the damage, hired a surveyor to establish the actual property line and pursued compensation in court.

A chancery court awarded the couple $41,920 under Mississippi’s timber-trespass law. Payne Logging LLC challenged the findings, including the number and size of trees removed, the location of the boundary and the calculation of damages. In an October 7, 2025 decision, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi upheld the judgment.

Also Read: Antarctica’s ice briefly increased after heavy snowfall: Why scientists remain concerned

How the logging operation entered the wrong property

The Smiths owned 36.5 acres in Tishomingo County, Mississippi, next to a 40-acre tract belonging to Robert and Joyce Hester. In 2022, the Hesters hired Payne Logging LLC to harvest timber from their property.

The work included clearing a road intended to connect two parcels owned by the Hesters with a public road. According to the court record, the road was cut diagonally across the Smiths’ property. Trees were also removed along the northern boundary.

Gerald Smith testified that he had spoken with Jon Payne before the logging began and specifically told him not to cut trees on the Smiths’ land. Smith also said he asked Payne whether he knew where the property boundaries were and that Payne indicated he did.

On August 11, 2022, Rhonda Smith discovered that a route had been cut through their property. What had previously been a narrow trail that could accommodate a four-wheeler had been significantly widened by the logging work.

The Smiths counted and photographed the damage

After discovering the cutting, the couple began recording what had happened. They photographed the affected areas and created handwritten tallies showing the number of trees they believed had been removed and their respective diameters.

Because the trees themselves had already been taken away, the measurements were made using the remaining stumps. The court record states that the trees had been cut approximately two to three inches above ground level.

The Smiths later made another tally after what they described as a second encroachment along the northern boundary on August 21, 2022. Their combined records counted 1,299 trees.

Of that total, 466 trees measured seven inches or more in diameter, while 833 measured less than seven inches.

Payne Logging disputed the tally and questioned whether measurements taken from the stumps could accurately establish the size of the original trees. The company also challenged other aspects of the evidence used to determine the extent of the timber cutting.

The appeals court nevertheless found that the evidence supported the chancery court’s conclusions. Since the standing trees were no longer present, measuring the remaining stumps was considered relevant evidence for determining their size.

Survey showed the logging line was wrong

The precise location of the property boundary became a central issue in the case.

The line relied upon during the logging operation was not the actual property boundary. According to the appellate decision, the line used by the company was, at some locations, as much as 180 feet away from the correct boundary.

The Smiths engaged certified surveyor J.T. Strickland to determine where the property line actually ran. Strickland completed a Class C survey and prepared a plat identifying the boundary.

He testified that the line shown in his survey was consistent with the deeds and earlier formal surveys involving the properties. His work determined that timber from 4.62 acres had been cut on the Smiths’ land.

The chancery court accepted the survey evidence and concluded that the boundary followed by Payne Logging was incorrect. The appellate court also noted evidence indicating that logging continued even after the company had been shown the correct property line.

Also Read: 'Bihari in me said I’ll come back when your President invites me': He left the US for Bihar, years later, Obama’s White House came calling

Why the damages reached $41,920

The compensation was calculated under Mississippi’s timber-trespass law, which provides remedies for trees removed without the landowner’s consent. The law also permits additional damages when the cutting is found to have been wilful or carried out with reckless disregard for the owner’s rights.

The Smiths did not present evidence establishing the individual market value of the trees. Instead, after determining that the cutting was wilful or done in reckless disregard of their property rights, the chancery court applied the statutory per-tree penalties.

The resulting award consisted of several components. The court awarded $25,630 for the 466 trees measuring at least seven inches in diameter and $8,330 for the 833 smaller trees. It also included $1,155 in statutory reforestation damages, $5,500 for attorney’s fees and $1,305 to cover the cost of the survey.

Together, those amounts brought the judgment to $41,920.

Appeal fails as court upholds the award

Payne Logging appealed the chancery court’s ruling, arguing that the evidence did not adequately establish the number and size of the trees cut or that the trees were located on the Smiths’ property. The company also challenged the survey findings and damages.

The Court of Appeals of Mississippi rejected those challenges and affirmed the judgment in its October 7, 2025 decision.

The appeals court found sufficient evidence to establish that trees had been cut from the Smiths’ land. It also upheld the findings concerning the tree count, the measurements taken from the stumps and the survey identifying the correct boundary.

As a result, the $41,920 award remained in place.

The case ultimately hinged on how the damage was documented after the trees had already been removed. The Smiths’ photographs and handwritten tally established the scale of the cutting, while the professional survey addressed the disputed property line. Their evidence, along with testimony presented in court, was enough to support the lower court’s findings and the resulting damages award.