Napa winery sues neighbour over redwood trees
Quantum Limit has filed a lawsuit against Okell Holdings for planting redwood trees, which Quantum’s owner says is like “dropping a bunker buster bomb” into its Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard. Sarah Neish investigates.
A feud has broken out in Napa Valley over a wall of redwood trees, said to have been planted “just a few feet” away from Quantum Limit’s vineyard. Quantum is concerned that when the trees reach maturity they may stretch to heights of up to 100 feet, “with a canopy spread of up to 75 feet and roots extending 20 to 75 feet from the trunk.”
“This dense row of enormous trees poses a threat to the affected vineyard block through shading, invasive roots, and potential allelopathic effects that can adversely impact the character and flavour of the wine grapes,” says a statement from the Napa winery.
The vineyard at the heart of the conflict is home to Quantum’s most prized Cabernet Sauvignon. A single bottle of the 2019 vintage of Quantum Limit’s Twenty Eight Blocks Cabernet Sauvignon is currently priced at US$145.
Excessive debris
Speaking exclusively to the drinks business, Glenn Rice, owner of Quantum Limit Vineyards, says: “The vines are 13 years old and were planted before the redwood trees were installed. The problem is that the debris from this species of tree is excessive and will contaminate the flavours in the wine, giving the essence of a redwood forest floor, with [unwanted] characteristics of resin, camphor, laurel, mushrooms and musk.”
Comparing planting the trees to “dropping a bunker buster bomb” into his vineyard, Rice explains that his team “carefully manages the soil biome and nutrient composition to perfect our Cabernet. Growing redwood trees so close to such a tightly controlled and balanced vineyard is like dropping a bunker buster bomb. Finally, the vineyard orientation is southwest, so imagine the shade created by 60-100 trees.”
“Redwood trees are the largest tree in the planet. So if you wanted to destroy a neighbour’s vineyard and their business, this is by far and away the best thing to plant.”
‘Spite fence’
Quantum claims it has spent more than a year trying to “resolve the issue amicably” by persuading its neighbour Okell to move the trees away from the vineyard, and maintains that the row of trees is classified, under Californian law, as a ‘spite fence’.
The ‘spite fence’ statute says that a row of trees, if planted “for the purposes of injuring or annoying the adjacent owner”, may be deemed a ‘spite fence’, in which case the aggrieved party is entitled to seek damages and a court order directing removal or relocation of the trees.
Partner Content
“These trees were planted only feet from the vineyard in an area renowned for world-class Cabernet,” says Rice. “It’s not just about our property—it’s about protecting the quality standards that make Napa Valley vineyards exceptional…
“Imagine someone planting a wall of redwoods next to To Kalon Vineyard and you will see why this case matters for everyone in the business of farming premium wine grapes or making wine from them.”
To Kalon is one of the most renowned wineries in Napa and is considered by many to be the holy grail of Californian winemaking.
“Malicious conduct”
“We believe the neighbour [Okell Holdings] knows about the damage that redwoods do to vineyards because they are grape growers themselves,” continues Rice. “We are asking the court to prevent malicious conduct that threatens our business.”
Quantum claims that the conflict over the redwood trees is the latest in a spate of “troubling behaviour” by Okell, including allegedly interfering with Quantum’s water rights, making a string of unjustified complaints about Quantum to regulatory agencies, and “discharging firearms near the Quantum property in the evenings.”
Who are Okell Holdings?
Okell Holdings and its operations are somewhat opaque, with information about the business not widely available online. But according to Rice, Okell sells its grapes to a number of different wineries in Napa. In 2005 a trademark application was filed by one James L Congdon of Quail Ridge Drive, Napa, for the name ‘Okell Hill Vineyards’, a site which in 2007 was classed as “dead and abandoned”. In 2008 this information was updated to reflect “intent to use a section” of the vineyard.
In 2017, a second trademark application was made for ‘Okell Hill Vineyards’, this time by a company named Okell Holdings.
The redwood court case is expected to be held within 12 to 24 months’ time.
“We believe this is a precedent setting court case,” Rice tells db. “The vineyards of Napa are really at the level of a UNESCO designation in terms of their beauty, terroir and special history. We hope that a favourable court ruling helps to protect the very special legacy of Napa Valley in the future for all vineyard owners and winemakers.”
Related news
That's the spirit: drunk raccoon found passed out in liquor store
Caviar chicken nuggets and postpartum mocktails: 2025's top trending Google searches
Bruichladdich brings Islay spirit to New York with holiday pop-up
I agree with the removal but how are you going to include all forms of fencing and or trees eucalyptus or hell that tree is disgustingly dirty. I’m sure it would influence the flavor of the Cabernet, but if the other person was growing marijuana let’s say he would have to have a fence. Maybe 40 ft high all the way around. Kind of like a prison because you can’t see the product being grown. California state law so this guy doesn’t like you think eucalyptus you better pay him money. Don’t insult them either. You know pay you’re not going to like what goes up there next. I bet those are the type of people you’re dealing with. Good luck!
Grapes are good. But as a 70 yr old man we has farmed in this valley for generations both dairy cattle and also had a vineyard. And with those grapes made wine good wine. Let’s let the people know, that you are putting on the razzle-dazzle! No wine is worth &145.00 a bottle, That’s about $40.00 a glass are you off your rocker? I’m Portuguese my father,grandfather and great grandfather have all made wine in this valley for over 100 years. This valley has become full of B.S. rrslike you ripping folks off drinking wine should be a pleasure. But guys like you only care about the money, so you razzell dazzle it up trying to fool people out of their money. I have seen it all in this valley cattle , then apricots, then prunes , and now grapes. Let me tell you something it won’t last! Redwood trees will. You’ll be gone too! So back off redwoods are
Sacred!
What would be the purpose of planting one row of ( fast growing ) redwood trees other than malicious intent. Anyone doing the minimal amount of research will find that Mr. Rice is absolutely right in his assessment of the situation.
a screen; Redwood are pretty good and attractive visual screens in their first decade or three, so it’s reasonable for a land owner to plant them as a screen. I have planted Redwoods, Cedars and Eucalyptus as screen and windbreak. We need more trees; we don’t need more bougie vineyards.
Well Mr rice
Buy the property
Your reasons for control are absurd.
Maybe the trees will give the grapes a truly unique flavor. For every cloud has a silver lining. Also grapes aren’t protected as they are non native but the redwoods probably are.
Please leave Those beautiful Majestic Redwood trees alone. These trees contribute to our environment unlike grape vines. Nape and all the surrounding area have enough grape vineyard. As an environmentalist and a lover of nature I will make sure to not buy your wine products. Leave Napa locals residents alone
Considering what non-organic vineyards are doing to the natural environment with their bleeding chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and the fact that most vineyards are large enough that they can well afford to not plant up to the fenceline, and the fact that they are not growing food, but an arguably expendable commodity that, in actuality, benefits no-one but the owners, I’d have to say, “I feel your pain—but Tough Titty!!!”
The idea that wine vineyards deserve UNESCO statis is absurd.
It’s sad that neighbors can’t get along, it’s even sadder when rich people use their money to throw tantrums…
I have to agree with the winery. This is obviously done to hurt the winery. I would be interested in how tall the redwoods are that the neighbor planted and how fast do they grow. But in the end that doesn’t matter, the neighbor is doing this on purpose. I would install security cameras on the area as the neighbor may do even more aggressive actions.
Suck it up . There’s too many farms and ranches being destroyed just to plant more grapes . Enough is enough or let’s just say too much .
This article does not ask the question as to why the trees are needed there. I believe it’s to keep the soil to erode into this vineyard. It does not matter where you live in this world there will always be issues with some neighbors. You have some that help and support this valley and others you have never seen. I know one party to this, and they are amazing neighbors always helping and friendly. The other party I have never met, and I would tend to believe the two we as a community know and respect.
Bill
No opinion on the legal position, however many California wineries are pushing grapes maturity from every increasing heat and sunburn. The land of boring low acid demented Phenolic “fruit bomb” wines. Those cab vines just may benefit from some offset shade in the years to come. Maybe make a slow matured complex wine, rather than the standard “cotton candy” one dementional, no personality wines…. That’s a thought.
Although I feel for the vineyard owner, a bigger question is what types of uses is the neighbor allowed? Many uses might subtly affect the vineyard and its microclimate: oils and aromas (Eucalyptus and Cannabis were mentioned), roots, bird habitat, shade. The question is why does one property owner have a greater right to a border than another? These things have been litigated often in the Berkeley and Oakland Hills in terms of a property’s view shed, noise from a school or playground, etc. In the end I am not sure the vineyard owner has a string legal position.
I love all the comments left here on a story that is one sided with so many assumptions. Frankly I am disappointed in Sarah Neish for writing a story without any input from the other side. You have to wonder if Sarah Neish is connected to Quantum Limit in some way or was paid by them to write a one-sided article. Also just to clarify neither of these two names has a winery, they grow grapes, make some of their own wine off site and are what we call growers (fancy name for Farmers). We have no idea why the trees were planted and only have Quantum Limits version. Working with many of the top arborists and tree experts in the California area for years most of which has been in the Napa, Sanoma, Mendocino, and lake county region I know for a fact there are only a very small handful of tree cultivars that will affect wine grapes with flavor, root kill and suffocation. Redwood trees are not one of them and if you actually do any research, you have wonder how they grow grapes and redwoods together all over Mendocino County in spectacular fashion (because there is no issue combining the two). From what I can tell these two properties are located in the southern part of Napa where Redwood trees do not flourish and would be super slow growing. Most of this area is considered Oak Woodland which means there are likely Oak Trees all around these properties. Now that is a much bigger problem for grapes than a redwood tree. However, there are other considerations that may be in play here that these trees could cause potential problems with, i.e.: paved roads, buildings, foundations, sidewalks, etc., but none of us know those facts. Sure, shading may be of an issue if extensive, but no one is intitled to the sun and depending on the cultivar of Redwood (guessing Aptos Blues) they may be considerably smaller than a standard Coastal Redwood, smaller framed and cover a much smaller cylindrical foot print which would not yield itself to being a major problem. What I can also say is that I have personally had the Cabernet Sauvignon wine of Quantum Limit vineyard on multiple occasions and my personal opinion is I cannot believe it is $145 a bottle as I would have trouble purchasing it for even $45 a bottle, but to each his own. This whole article smells something like a cheap publicity stunt to try and get notoriety and sell overpriced wine from a no name vineyard trying to make a name for itself any way it can. If you follow the Sierra Wine Guy on Instagram, I think he summed it up very accurately.