Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br />that fence viewers ordered the parties to build or maintain the fence, found the fence to be <br />deficient and ordered its repair, or assigned a share of the fence to appellant to be <br />repaired. Minn. Stat. §§ 344.04, .06. Further, fence viewers have not “decide[d]that <br />either occupant has voluntarily erected or otherwise become the proprietor of more than <br />that occupant’s just share of the fence before a complaint was made,”such that they <br />could order the party contributing less to “pay for the share of the fence assigned to the <br />other to repair and maintain.” Minn. Stat. § 344.09. Ultimately, if the “fence was not <br />built at such time and place, under the statute, to permit the builder of it to burden his <br />neighbor with part of its costs,” that fence is not a “partition fence.” Brom v. Kalmes, <br />304 Minn. 244, 250, 230 N.W.2d 69, 74 (1975); see also 36A C.J.S. Fences §23 (2003) <br />(“Although a fence actually exists between adjacent lands, it will become a partition <br />fence[]and the obligations and rights of the adjacent owners . . . will arise only on its <br />being made a partition fence by agreement, or by proceeding in the manner prescribed by <br />the statute[.]”). <br />There is no support for the assertion that appellant can unilaterally deem a fence to <br />be a jointly owned and controlled partition fence when it is wholly on a neighbor’s <br />property and was not constructed as, or converted into, a partition fence according to <br />statute. There are only a few cases that discuss the application of the partition fence <br />statute, but these cases do not specify how the fences became partition fences or involve <br />disputes about whether the partition fence law applies. See Rice, 517 N.W.2d at 607–0 8 <br />(noting that one party told the other “that the fence separating the adjoining properties <br />needed to be replaced,” and applying the partition fence law); Miles, 373 N.W.2d at 656–