Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br />Appellant first challenges the district court’s conclusion that the fence is not a <br />partition fence because it is wholly on respondents’ property. The statute clearly <br />presumes that a partition fence will be placed on the property line,but the statute <br />indicates that in certain situations—specifically, where a stream or pond ma kes it <br />“impracticable, without unreasonable expense”—the fence can be built off of the <br />property line. Minn. Stat. § 344.10. Moreover, the parties with adjoining property may <br />“agree upon [a location] as such dividing line, and as the place where the partition fence <br />should be built,” and “are estopped to deny that it is a partition fence” when such <br />agreement is evident. Oxborough v. Boesser, 30 Minn. 1, 3, 13 N.W. 906, 907 (1882). <br />Thus, appellant is correct that the partition fence statute and relevant caselaw do not <br />strictly require partition fences to be located on the property line, though the general rule <br />is that “a fence built by a person on his or her own land and claimed by him or her and <br />his or her grantees as theirs exclusively is not a division or partition fence recognized by <br />the statute.” 36A C.J.S. Fences §5 (2003). Despite that general rule, we decline to adopt <br />the district court’s conclusion that this fence is not a partition fence solely because of the <br />fence’s location. <br />Rather, we conclude that the partition fence statute does not justify appellant’s <br />actions for two other reasons. First, there is no indication that either party has done <br />anything to cause this fence to be a partition fence. For example,there is no indication <br />that fence viewers approved this particular fence as a partition fence, which would be <br />necessary because the fence is plainly not one of the statutorily enumerated varieties of <br />partition fences. See Minn. St at. § 344.02, subd. 1(a)–(d). There are also no indications