Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br />Minn. Stat. §§ 344.02, subd. 1(e) (allowing a fence that does not meet the other fence <br />construction categories to be considered a partition fence by the fence viewers); 344.06 <br />(allowing, when “a controversy arises concerning the rights in partition fences of the <br />respective occupants or their obligation to maintain the fences,” the fence viewers to <br />assign each property owner a share of the fence for repair or erection); McClay v. Clark, <br />42 Minn. 363, 364, 44 N.W. 255, 255 (1890) (noting that the parties were owners of <br />adjoining land,“separated by a division fence” that both parties used and benefitted from, <br />and which “thus served as a partition fence between their lands”). <br />When there are disputes about whether a fence has been properly maintained, what <br />type of fence to build, or where to locate the fence in reference to bodies of water that <br />may exist along the property lines, a body comprised of local supervisors, city council <br />me mbers, commissioners, or trustees, known as “fence viewers” can provide a resolution. <br />Minn. Stat. §§344.02, subd. 2 (requiring fence viewers to “determine what kind of fence <br />should be built on the line and order it built”when the parties disagree about the kind of <br />fence to be built); 344.04 (empowering fence viewers to “determine that an existing fence <br />is insufficient or a new fence is necessary”); 344.10 (allowing fence viewers to <br />“determine that it is impracticable, without unreasonable expense, for a partition fence to <br />be made on the waters at the true boundary line” and determine “on which side of the <br />stream or pond the fence must be erected and maintained”). When one party “fails to <br />build, repair, or rebuild a partition fence,” the fence viewers may order the failing party to <br />undertake that action or the other party may recover double their costs of performing the <br />work. Minn. Stat. §§ 344.04–.05.