I recently had a client who had a dispute with his neighbor about the location of a fence separating their yards. In short, one neighbor wanted to replace a deteriorated fence. Later he changed his mind when he found out that the old fence would need to be moved a foot closer to his home because it wasn’t located on the true boundary line. Since the fence had been there a long time, he thought that the fence line was the property line. Over a period of a few months, the fence was installed at the true boundary line but it cost both neighbors a lot of time, money and frustration. If you see yourself faced with this dilemma, I hope reading below will lessen the headache.
Although I am not an attorney, and anyone reading this should check with their own licensed and qualified attorney who specializes in these types of issues, there are a few things one should think about if you find yourself in a dispute over fences and boundary lines with your neighbor.
Below is a copy of an e-mail (legal update #20) that was sent out to local real estate professionals discussing the new law that went into effect January 1st 2014. It was written by Dean Rossi of the Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck law firm.
“Effective January 1, 2014, the California legislature completely revised Section 841 of the Civil Code to address this issue. The new statute does clarify many points, but it also raises certain issues that I’m sure will lead to further controversy. The statute is to be known as the “Good Neighbor Fence Act of 2013” and is clearly intended to update and clarify existing California law regarding shared fencing. It will largely affect only residential property owners, because it does not apply to any city, county, district or public corporation or other political subdivision or public agency.
The new Good Neighbor Fence Act is also designed to avoid one party being unjustly enriched at the expense of another party – their neighbor. The revised statute begins with the premise that adjoining landowners are presumed to share equal benefits from any fence dividing their properties. Of course, unless the parties have agreed in writing to some different arrangement, the law provides that the reasonable cost of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of a fence shall be equally shared.
In order to prevent surprise, the law provides that when one neighbor intends to incur costs for a fence, whether due to construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement, that landowner shall give their neighbor 30 days’ prior written notice. The notice must state that the intent is to share responsibility equally for the costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement. The notice must also provide a description of the problem with the shared fence, the proposed solution, the estimated construction or maintenance costs involved to fix the problem, and the proposed cost-sharing approach. It further provides that the owner shall provide in that notice a timeline for addressing the problem.
Unfortunately, the law does not provide how the written notice should be delivered and what the remedy or procedure is if the neighbor does not respond to the notice. We advise that whenever possible, this notice should be hand-delivered to the property owners involved and discussions undertaken between the neighbors to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what is going to be done, how much it is going to cost, and the fact that the costs will be shared equally. If such a meeting takes place, one of the parties should make a written record of it in order to have a paper trail in case anyone conveniently develops total or partial amnesia later on.
As mentioned, this new law presumes that each property owner adjoining the fence shall equally share in the cost. However, the law also contains an opt-out clause providing that an owner may overcome this presumption “by a preponderance of the evidence over 50%” demonstrating that equal responsibility for costs would be unjust. The statute then gives factors that a judge or court should consider in determining whether equal financial responsibility would be unjust. Those factors are as follows:
In most cases, the presumption that the costs should be shared equally will apply, but if one neighbor wants to try to rebut that resumption based on any of the factors listed above, it is certainly possible to do so.
Given the fact that neighbors are allowed to attempt to rebut the presumption of equal sharing of costs, it makes it doubly important to sit down with your neighbor and see if you can agree on the type of fence, costs, etc. If one party wants redwood and the other wants some rare imported Brazilian lumber, that is a factor that must be taken into consideration in accordance with the guidelines set forth above.”
Additional discussion can be found by reading Fence and Boundary Line Disputes