Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />ISSUE <br />Does the partition fence statute, Minn. Stat. §§ 344.01–.20,provide a legal basis <br />for appellant to unilaterally paint and repair respondents’ fence without their consent? <br />ANALYSIS <br />Appellant argues that the district court erred as a matter of law in finding that the <br />fence is not a partition fence, a status which, appellant believes, would allow him to <br />repair the fence and seek contribution from respondents for his costs. Respondents argue <br />that the fence is not a partition fence,and that the partition fence statute is inapplicable <br />and does not excuse what would otherwise be vandalism of their property. <br />“Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” Rice v. <br />Kringler, 517 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Minn. App. 1994). “Findings of the trial court must be <br />affirmed unless clearly erroneous.” Miles v. Althoff, 373 N.W.2d 655, 657 (Minn. App. <br />1985), review denied (Minn. Nov. 1, 1985); Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. <br />A “partition fence” is a fence used to separate adjoining property. Minn. St at. <br />§344.01–.20. Only fences meeting specific requirements for height, distance between <br />posts, and density of barbs for barbed wire fences are partition fences, though other <br />fences may be sufficient if they “are considered by the fence viewers as equivalent to any <br />of the fences listed in this subdivision.” Minn. Stat. §344.02, subd. 1(e). The partition <br />fence statute allows,for land that is “improved and used,” one or both of the owners of <br />adjoining land to “build and maintain a partition fence between their lands in equal <br />shares.” Minn. Stat. §344.03, subd. 1. However, a pre-existing fence located on or near <br />the property line may also be designated as a partition fence by the fence viewers. See