09-28-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 57 (noting that the parties owned adjoining property with a “boundary line fence,” and applying the partition fence law); McClay, 42 Minn. at 364, 44 N.W. at 255 (noting that “both parties ha[d]the use and benefit of such division fence, which thus served as a partition fence between their lands”). More importantly, regardless of how the fence in each case came to be deemed a partition fence, each case involves a party who sought relief under the partition fence statute, a distinguishing point from the instant case. Second, there is no independent right of repair in the partition fence statute. To the extent that unilateral repair is contemplated, the statute only allows such repair when fence viewers deem it necessary and have followed the specific statutory procedures for notifying the parties and allowing the repair of the fence by the party that is required to do so. See Rice, 517 N.W.2d at 608 (reversing a district court’s order that one party must pay repair costs because that party was not given proper notice of the fence viewers’ visit under the statute); 36A C.J.S. Fences §26 (2003) (“Before a duty to build, maintain, or repair a partition fence can arise under such a statute, there must be a compliance with the conditions imposed thereby.”). Appellant argues that he attempted to contact fence viewers for the city of Orono, but was rebuffed because the city “didn’t want anything to do with it” and did not “want[] to participate.” Apparently because of this lack of response, appellant took it upon himself to repair the fence. But nothing in the partition fence statute allows such unilateral action. Appellant’s self-help remedy is disfavored in part because there are other legal options through which appellant can address concerns about his neighbors’fence. Further, appellant could have sought to force the city of Orono to perform what appears