Oz is so far ahead .............
Cheers,
Derek
not sure what you have over there, but here in Tasmania we have the Boundary Fences Act.
Some people I have contact with in respect to a dispute have already studied the Act so know their obligations.
I'm unaware of the Victorian legislation, but is is very simple here.
The obligation to fence is up to the individual in as much if they want say an elephant fence when only a barbed wire fence is needed then the term 'sufficient fence' comes into it's real meaning.
If owner A wants a 6' high paling fence made of some exotic wood and owner B is happy with a standard 4' paling fence then the latter would be deemed the 'sufficient fence' and owner A would have to pay for anything above that.
The Act places fence ownership equally on the parties either side.
I expect the 'sufficient fence' is now a bit cloudy , as it had it's origins in pre-modern days when everyone had a cow, being a house cow or a farm cow.
So it was merely to describe what was sufficient to hold stock.
In the modern scenario in inner suburbia and with so many variations of fences about it takes on a different meaning.
I'd be interested to read the new regs.
We are seeing gabions used as fences now. Imagine if your neighbor expected you to pay half that!
One of the problems I have here is owner A wants a new fence and the old one is 'probably not in its correct place'.
He contacts me and asks about who pays.
I suggest he talks to his neighbor as they both should.
Owner B tells A to go and jump. Then it becomes a civil bunfight, and A gets the survey done and B comes along and says I'm wrong 'cos the bloke I bought it off had it surveyed and told me its right'
I tell him to get another surveyor to check or produce the previous survey.
Guess that's par for the course where ever we are.
Richard-
Have to dash, but here's some exciting (read ........... could be boring) Ontario fence legislation:
Cheers,
Derek
Laws on fences
Laws relative to fences in the U.S. usually vary somewhat from State to State. Living in a part of what was known as the Old West, the standards here are probably significantly different from those in areas of the country settled much earlier. Here, most all of the land was suitable for livestock production. Finding a reliable source of water was the big problem. So, the earliest non-Native American users of the land had herds of cattle or sheep and pretty much moved them most anywhere they desired to match water supply to food supply and protection. Then those darned guys in D.C. (Great White Father and his cronies) decided to clear out the overpopulation of immigrants and slum dwellers from the East Coast and began declaring large areas of land open for purchase from the Federal Government for settlement by common people. Suddenly, people were actually able to OWN a piece of real estate. This is where the fence law debate began to heat up. In our area, where grazing livestock was the normal practice, the early laws dictated that anyone foolish enough to want to raise crops or anything else that might be harmed by ranging livestock had to erect fences to protect their investments. This somewhat made sense as this was a treeless expanse for as far as the eye could see with the exception of a rare few trees along rivers and large creeks. Everything else was grassland of one kind or another. As more and more settlers arrived, the ability to range livestock all over the place was becoming more and more difficult and the settlers who had to build fences out of whatever they could find were not as successful at doing so as they would have hoped. Things became heated and eventually the fence law was reversed such that it was incumbent upon the livestock owner to fence in their livestock. The invention of barbed wire sort of opened the door to making this a realiztic possibility. Within a few years many thousands of miles of barbed wire fencing were erected. Logically, there weren't thousands of surveyors around to determine precisely where these should be erected at an economical price, or any price for that matter. The land owners did the best they could. As time passed and the population of certain areas became siginficantly dense, the need to repair and replace the original fences became common. Fairness dictated that some sort of compromise needed to be in place for shared responsibility for fence maintenance. Some practices were added into the State statutes and other practice merely became what was known as a Gentleman's Agreement. For example, you may hear people say that you are responsible for the right half of the fence as you face it looking towards your neighbor's property. Your neighbor, looking back at your property and doing the same thing, would take responsibility for the other half, which is to his right. This may have become common practice but it generally is not specified as such in any statutes. The other part of the issue involves determining the precise definition of a "sufficient" fence so as to force a reluctant neighbor into doing their share of the maintenance. Even today's standards on that issue are ridiculously inadequate. In fact, a properly constructed electric fence can, in some instances, qualify as a legal fence.
One of the odd things about fence law, at least in Kansas, involves the handling of disputes between neighbors over the sufficiency of fences between neighbors. The statutes dictate that the overseeing authorities to enforce action are the county commissioners. When they get involved they do not do so as a part of their normal county business as this is not county business. They are doing it because the statute says that they are the ones to do it. Apparently this assumes them to be disinterested third parties of distinction within the community who are sufficiently wise as to serve as judge and jury for fence law matters. Such a fence dispute arose recently within our county and the commissioners finally arrived at their decision yesterday. First, however, they had to go out to the farms involved and actually walk along the common fences in the company of representatives of both land owners. That was done about a month ago. In this case, they had to attempt to traverse a half mile in an easterly direction while making about four creek crossings, then turn northerly for another half mile with a few more creek crossings. One landowner is a very wealthy out-of-area operator of a large commercial venture who charges people to hunt on his numerous properties in several States. The other landowner is a local farmer with only a few hundred acres total, in a county where the average farm size is now over 1000 acres. The dispute came to a head primarily because the wealthy fellow wants to buy out the little guy and the little guy has no interest whatsoever in selling at any price to anyone. The wealthy fellow had refused to participate in any fashion relative to fence maintenance. He has spent more on attorneys already fighting the fence issue than what he would need to pay to purchase a farm of similar size somewhere else. Meanwhile, the county commissioners get caught in the crossfire.
In Virginia
As noted above, fence laws vary from state to state here in the States. In Virginia it even varies from county to county. Many years ago each county decided whether to be a "fence in" or "fence out" county. That sets the rules for who is responsible for erecting the fence. But the law also says that the erector of the fence can send a bill to the neighbor for 1/2 the cost of the common fence.
Thanks Derek.
That is enlightening reading.
Surely that could be condensed somewhat.
So what is a Fence viewer? An Ombudsman, Sherrif, Magistrate type person in relation to fences?
It's been interesting observing the changes here in Tasmania as more mainlanders come and live here.
Tasmanians wouldn't be worried about an odd foot or even a yard or so when it comes to fences being on the boundary.
It takes a bit of explaining to Sydneyites when I say there fences are out. They come from a mindset of 1" is pretty slack and can't comprehend why we are not he same.
Land values come in a factor of 10 times difference. Helps explain their views.
Richard
In my post below the county commissioners serve the role of being "fence vieweres" per the statute. The traverse of the fence line with the land owners constitutes the "viewing" portion of their task.
Recognizing that things are different all over the place, let me explain the term county commissioner. Here each State is divided into a large number of specific geographical units known as Counties. In Kansas there are 105 counties. Cities, towns, villages, etc. are a part of the county in which they exist. In rare cases a city may be in more than one county, which is somewhat confusing. Anyway, each county has a number of elected officials to perform specific duties. These include: clerk, treasurer, sheriff, appraiser/assessor, etc. In my locale there are three county commissioners elected to oversee the entire business of the county and assist the other elected officials. They set the budget, sign contracts, establish personnel policy and a thousand other duties that do not clearly fall directly to the other elected officials.
What is a fence viewer
Richard-
"So what is a Fence viewer? An Ombudsman, Sherrif, Magistrate type person in relation to fences?"
Usually a person appointed as a fence viewer is someone who has volunteered his/her name and is duly appointed.
Main qualifications are common sense and experience in fencing.
The cadastral surveyor will set the boundary line(s)for the potential fence positioning.
The Fence Viewers(FVs)cannot tell the parties where to put the fence other than on the boundary, with some exceptions.
The FVs may set out the type of, and who pays for what type of fence where on the boundary cognisant of the 'Fence By-Law' if it exists.
If the boundary goes through an area that is 'topographically challenging' ........ read = not to bright to put a fence there in the swamp / side of ravine/mountain etc.
There can be a report as to a fencing variance from the boundary.
Try and find it tho' 100 years later !!
This gets to be a challenge on boundary retracement surveys when a fence is found to be 'out of whack' insofar as it does not fit the general cadastral model.
The records of the FVs may not be found in the municipal records or in any land registry system.
Cheers,
Derek
What is a fence viewer
Thanks Derek and Holy Cow.
Sounds like they could well be people that are loved or hated, and not a job to envy.
