[WSBARP] Fencing Issues - Seeking a second to pick your brain

[Craig Blackmon]

Michael, thanks for this question! I was fully unaware of Chapter 16
Animals and Livestock, Chapter 60 Fences. I had no idea! Are these pasture
parcels, and is there livestock?

Also, are all five parcels currently enclosed by one fence? And your client
wants to split the parcels with a fence? I think that is a required
predicate of RCW 16.60.030
<https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=16.60.030>.

I look forward to other thoughts.

Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
<https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000029240>
92 Lenora St. #103, Seattle WA  98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949
On the blog: Co-Ownership of Real Property by Single People
<https://www.fsbolawyers.org/blog/tenants-in-common-agreement>
<https://seattlepropertylawyer.com/>    <https://www.fsbolawyers.org/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
copies.


On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:38 AM <msafren at jennylinglaw.com> wrote:

> Hello Fellow Listservers:
>
>
>
> I have an interesting situation regarding fencing and fence replacement
> and I wanted to ask the listserv their thoughts on the matter.
>
>
>
> Facts:
>
> I have a client who wants to replace a boundary fence to replace failing
> and damaged fencing on client’s property.  Three other neighbors have
> agreed to share the costs for the replacement and installation of the
> fencing, but a fourth will not.  Notice was sent pursuant to RCW 16.60.040
> that client intended to replace the failing fencing with new fencing and
> provided both a quote for the replacement and the requested contribution
> and cited to RCW 16..60.020 – 16.60.040, which as I read it state that
> adjoining property owners must share in the cost for a boundary fence and
> if one will not pay, then the cost is recoverable by law.
>
>
>
> Neighbor has responded that instead of replacing the fence consistent with
> the quality, materials, and aesthetics of the new planned fence, neighbor
> will hire a relative to repair the existing fence.  Relative is a licensed
> contractor, but this is clearly not an arm’s length transaction.  Further,
> my client has had an unpleasant experience/ confrontation with the person
> who would serve as the contractor to the point where the police were called
> and responded.
>
>
>
> I believe that the offer is only made as an attempt to avoid the
> neighbor’s responsibilities under RCW 16..60.020 – 16.60.040 to pay for the
> fencing and disrupt my client from installing fencing that she and the
> other neighbors have agreed to.   Further, it feels like it was done in bad
> faith.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any insights into these issues? If the neighbors began
> work to repair the fencing without my client’s permission or approval,
> would my client have claims such as trespass, trespass to property for
> repairing the fence?  Would my client be financially responsible for any of
> the repairs?  RCW 16..60.020 – 16.60.040  only appear to speak to
> installation or construction of fencing, it does not speak to fencing
> repairs.  Further, there would likely be notice issues as RCW 16.60.040
> requires “reasonable length of time” to pass after giving notice, but
> doesn’t define what would be reasonable.
>
>
>
> Would my client need to obtain a TRO to prevent the neighbors from taking
> action to repair the fence because the client does not consent to the
> repairs?  Would my client need a declaratory judgment from the Court first
> before removing the damaged fencing and installing the new fencing?
>
>
>
> I’ve conducted legal research into the matter, but there appears to be a
> paucity of decisions on these matters.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts, opinions, insights, experiences are appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> *Michael S. Safren, Esq.*
> *Attorney at Law*
>
> 14900 Interurban Ave. S., Ste. 280 | Seattle, WA 98168
> 11900 NE 1st St., Bldg. G - Ste. 300 |  Bellevue, WA 98005
> P: (206) 859-5098 | E: msafren at jennylinglaw.com
> *www.jennylinglaw.com <http://www.jennylinglaw.com/>* | *facebook.com/jennylinglaw/
> <http://www.facebook.com/jennylinglaw/>*
>
>
>
>
> This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is
> confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It
> constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the
> designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication
> is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended
> recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,
> or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner.
> The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt
> by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any
> attorney/client or other privilege.
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20220912/88805206/attachment.html>