A retired U.S. Navy SEAL commander in New Hampshire has settled a legal dispute after removing a hemlock tree from a shared property boundary. Although initially facing two felony counts, Michael Hayes, 55, conceded to a non-criminal trespassing violation in court on October 23. Two felony charges related to alleged criminal mischief and timber trespass were dropped in exchange for a $1,000 fine.
## Felony Charges vs. Lesser Violation
Hayes was originally indicted by a Sullivan County grand jury on May 27 under two state laws:
– **Criminal mischief** (RSA 634:2), which becomes a felony when intentional damage exceeds $1,500.
– **Timber-harvesting trespass** (RSA 227-J:8-a), a class B felony if the destruction or loss exceeds $1,000.
During the court hearing in Newport’s Sullivan Superior Court, prosecutors dropped both felonies. Hayes pleaded guilty to a trespassing violation instead, apologized through his attorney, Jason Casey of Hinckley Allen, and left after paying the court-ordered fine. Judge James Kennedy presided over the case.
## Location, Tree, and Neighbors
The dispute centered on a hemlock standing along Hayes’ lakefront lot and property owned by Stacey Nath-Vinick and Michael Vinick, whose adjoining land shares the same boundary line. Hayes claimed concern about the tree’s health and potential danger, citing a previous incident in 2017 when a fallen tree destroyed a family vehicle. An arborist he hired for a drainage project reportedly informed him the hemlock was dying and posed a risk due to its lean toward the neighboring house.
Hayes communicated in an email to the Vinicks in June 2025 asking for permission to remove the tree. Nath-Vinick said she had responded, indicating the family was coping with the recent death of Michael Vinick’s father. The tree was taken down days later, along with a four-foot stump from another hemlock that the Vinicks had cut in 2019. Hayes asserted that removal of that earlier hemlock by the Vinicks had occurred without his permission.
## Dispute Over Value Assessment
More scrutiny surrounded how much damage was done. About a month after the trees were removed, the Vinicks hired Brian Beaty, a certified arboricultural consultant, to appraise the hemlock and stump. Beaty rated the condition at 53 percent (on a 10-to-100 percent scale) and estimated their replacement value at $11,259.
Hayes countered this valuation by bringing in Jeffrey Coombs, president of Ossipee Mountain Land Company, a business focused on forest management and firewood. Coombs examined photographic evidence and described the trees as being in an “advanced state of decline” with “no positive market value.” His analysis became central to Hayes’ defense.
Attorney Casey emphasized that Beaty’s report reflected replacement cost rather than the true market value. In a memo to County Attorney Christine Hilliard, he argued this weakened the prosecution’s case regarding financial loss. Casey also urged that Hayes acted in good faith, believing he had authorization, at least implicitly, and that the situation was a misunderstanding rather than intentional wrongdoing.
## Legal Framework and Verdict
Under New Hampshire law:
– **RSA 227-J:8-a** criminalizes cutting or destroying trees on another’s property without consent if it’s done recklessly, escalating to a felony when the financial loss involves the market value exceeding $1,000.
– **RSA 634:2** targets criminal mischief, which becomes a felony when the damage costs over $1,500.
In the case of Hayes, prosecutors opted not to pursue felony convictions. Instead, they agreed to downgrade the accusations to a trespass violation. He paid $1,000 in fines and submitted his plea on October 23 to resolve the matter more efficiently.
## Aftermath and Takeaways
Hayes has publicly stated that he accepted the lesser charge “because he wanted the matter to end as quickly as possible.” He also expressed frustration that he was not contacted before felony charges were filed.
For the Vinicks, financial loss and emotional investment were significant. Their loss claim rested on Beaty’s assessment, including the idea that the removed stump supported a regularly used hammock. But Hayes and his defense challenged not just the amount of loss, but its nature—whether it reflected replacement value rather than real market value.
This case underscores how property law, arboriculture assessment, and neighbor relations can collide in disputes over boundary trees. Legal liability, in New Hampshire as elsewhere, hinges heavily on demonstrable, proof-based evaluations of damage, loss, and intention. Recklessness or intentional harm can lead to serious criminal liability—if financial loss crosses statutory thresholds.
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
