09-28-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 reinforce a post so that it would not fall over. Appellant never advised, or sought permission from, respondents about these activities. When respondents learned that their fence had been painted and repaired, they sent appellant a letter stating that they believed he trespassed on their property and that it would cost $5,071.86 to return the fence to its unpainted state. In addition, respondents advised appellant that they did not want any “verbal, physical[,] or written contact” with him or his wife. Despite the letter,appellant had the fence painted again in September 2011.Appellant testified that he believed this second painting was permissible because respondents had not properly maintained the fence under city code, and because the painting was done “in order to keep the fence from falling on to my property,in order to keep my wife from getting sick from the mold, [and] to basically improve the value of both of our properties.” Respondents filed a conciliation court claim for $5,071.86,plus costs,for their claimed damages to restore the fence to its natural condition. In response, appellant filed a counterclaim for $920,plus costs,for his expenses in painting and repairing the fence. The conciliation court awarded respondents $2,000, plus costs of $70,but that judgment was vacated when appellant filed a demand for removal and appeal to the district court. Following a bench trial,the district court found that appellant “decided to remedy what [he]believed to be disrepair and mold by painting a fence that did not belong to [him].” The district court concluded that the fence is not a partition or common fence and that the partition fence statute does not apply because the fence is entirely on respondents’ property. As a result, the district court ordered judgment for respondents for $5,071.86, plus costs, which was the full amount of respondents’ claimed damages.