Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
. Common fence shared with back fence neighbor that was destroyed due to redwoods uprooting over property line They do not want to pay half the cost. They believe that the portion of the fence line is more beneficial to us because the fence is on level ground to our yard. They live below the fence line and landscaping covers it. They also said they paid to remove the trees (which were on their property). It�s just funny that he refuses to believe this pertains to him because he lives below the fence line.
Second issue with second neighbor we share a common fence with on our front side yard. They are in a short sale. Our common fence has a shed built on the neighbor�s side which the roof overhangs onto our property The shed roof tiles have shredded and debris falls in our front yard along with nails and staples from the shingles. We have called the planning inspector which issued them a removal notice over 2 months ago. Since they are in a short sale the bank is taking FOREVER to remove the shed. We want to know if there are legal steps for us to get the bank to remove the shed or perhaps have legal action taken with the inspector to get a more serious fine or ticket issued.
1 Answer from Attorneys
California's law on this subject is archaic, dating back to the original 1872 Civil Code, without amendment. See Civil Code section 841: "Coterminous owners are mutually bound equally to maintain: 1. The boundaries and monuments between them; 2. The fences between them , unless one of them chooses to let his land lie without fencing; in which case, if he afterwards incloses it, he must refund to the other a just proportion of the value, at that time, of any division fence made by the latter."
Courts have interpreted this to mean that if X and Y are adjoining neighbors, X doesn't have to contribute to the cost of constructing or maintaining the fence between X and Y unless or until X decides to enclose his entire parcel. Although the enclosure can be by fence, wall, buildings, hedges, etc., it must be complete, presumably so his cattle can't get out nor can the cattle of Y or Z get in.
Bottom line, by statute, your neighbor only has to contribute to the cost of the boundary fence if his own property is entirely enclosed by fence, etc. This may be the case when X has a dog, but more often than not, California residential properties are not 100% fenced in.
I have tried to get the California Law Review Commission interested in updating this law, but have been informed by a commission member that they like the law the way it is.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
