Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />O P I N I O N <br />HOOTEN,Judge <br />Appellant argues that the district court erred by holding that a fence that is located <br />on respondents’ property but that runs along the property line with appellant’s property, <br />is not a partition fence. Appellant further argues that, because the fence is a partition <br />fence, applicable law affords him the legal right to unilaterally paint and repair the fence <br />without respondents’ consent or knowledge. Because appellant failed to show that the <br />fence at issue is a partition fence or that he complied with the requirements of the <br />partition fence statute, we affirm. <br />FACTS <br />The parties own adjoining properties in Orono, Minnesota. A fence separates the <br />properties and is located entirely on property owned by respondents Peter H. Lanpher and <br />Penny A. Rogers, although,at one point it is located only three inches from the property <br />line. The fence is made out of natural cedar, but appellant Jay T. Nygard testified that the <br />fence was in disrepair, was “a rotted gray color,” and had mold growing on it. <br />Appellant’s wife testified that she experienced allergic reactions to mold on the fence. <br />Appellant testified that he attempted to contact “fence viewers”1 from the city of <br />Orono, but was told that the city “didn’t know what they were.” In July 2011, after <br />appellant was unable to obtain assistance from the city regarding his complaints about <br />respondents’ fence, he hired a friend to paint the fence, put in screws in several spots, and <br /> <br />1 The “fence viewers,” as defined in Minn. St at. § 344.01, is a body that handles fence <br />disputes and comprised of local supervisors, city council me mbers, commissioners, or <br />trustees, depending on the type of municipality in which the land exists.