Anybody in OK forced the split of fence costs?

[PlowGirl]

Has anyone here had to force a neighbor or neighbors to split the cost of boundary fences? How did you go about it?

Most are great neighbors, one is NOT. I foresee a real problem with this one. The fence is in poor shape and I have livestock.

I'm planning on using a woven fence rather than barbed, because I have goats and pigs. Is the cost split on the minimum amount of fencing, or what will be required to properly contain the specified livestock?
So far, looking through the OK Statutes, I'm still not certain about my rights and responsibilities in regards to the fence. Any suggestions?

[Junkmanme]

good luck.

[texican]

Good luck forcing a neighbor to split costs.

I'm not in Tx, but I've been on both ends of the situation, and split the costs with one neighbor, but not the other. One neighbor had animals, as I do, (I helped build the fence, and split the materials) the other neighbor is a rich developer that wanted me to fence off my pine plantation property from his multimillion dollar homes. I didn't help pay for that fence.

One of my other neighbors didn't want to help me with a fence... I had animals, he didn't, so I built the fence, absorbing all costs/labor. Built it six inches inside the property line, so the entire fence is mine. Once built, he wondered where the gates were . Told him I didn't plan on accessing his place through the back pasture, and that he no longer had access into mine.

Growing up, some previous owners of my parents place built their fence a good two foot inside the boundary, cause the neighbor didn't want to share. Once the fence was up, the owner who paid told the owner who didn't that he was going to eat any cow that trespassed on his place (legal boundary was still the survey line, not the new fence.) Neighbor who didn't pay realized that he meant it, and had to take his cattle off of the place.

[MsPacMan]

I'm not a lawyer and do not know the law in your state.


But it always seemed to me that morally, if not legally, the obligation for paying for a fence lie with the individual who wanted (needed) the fence put up in the first place.


Why should I pay half of the fence if my neighbor has livestock to keep fenced in?


It is your legal obligation (in Tennessee, at least, where I live) to keep your animals on your property. How you do that is your business, but it should not include forcing a financial burden upon me.


Again, I am not knowledgeable about the legal issues in your state, but I think in many (or even most) states, the burden of paying for the fence lies with the one who wants it put up the most.

[PlowGirl]

The only OK Statute that I'm not truly sure about is Title 143?

§ 143. Owners Not Required to Fence-Lands Enclosed or Used Not in Commons-
Duty to Fence.
Any person not wishing his land enclosed, and not occupying or using it otherwise than
as commons, shall not be compelled to contribute to erect or maintain any fence between
him and an adjacent owner; but when he encloses or uses his land otherwise than as a commons, he shall contribute to the partition fences as in this article provided.

This is a neighboring owner, who doesn't live on the land, but there is a house, of sorts, that he usually spends a few days a month. Mostly weekends. They keep water, electricity, and phone service. Would that fall into the use of the land as "otherwise", even though he carries no livestock on the property?

[PyroDon]

In Kansas if you build a fence on the property line you pay for it unless your neighbor connects to it at which point they have to pay half the cost.
Ive seen many people simply set a post with in three inches of an existing fence to avoid having to pay . They didnt connect to it .

[harrisjnet]

I live in Ok. Since we don't have Open Range, I believe it is the duty of the animal owner to fence them in away from other people's property. If it were Open Range as in Colorado, the animals have the right of way and the neighbor would have to fence them out. I would contact an attorney for advice. JMO

I think commons mean they don't use it for money making such as farm and ranch.

[coup]

here if you don't have livestock you don't have to pay but if you get livestock then you have to pay your half.

[clsmith15]

I don't know what the law is in this state but I always build the fence within my property line, maintain it myself, and do not share it. I haven't found laws to be enforceable here so I don't rely on them. If the neighbor is not going to want to share the responsibility it's easier to just put up your own fence.

[travlnusa]

WI still has laws that require each to pay half. My nieghbors and I have not made an issue out of it.

When we first moved out, the guy behind us told us he was putting up a new fence. I let him know I was aware of the law and would work with him. He said thanks for the offer, but he would cover it.

I am putting up new fences now. That neighbor saw me and came out to offer to cover his half. Just as I was given a break 5 yrs ago, I told this guy I would cover the cost.

[SteveD(TX)]

If your neighbor does not keep livestock, it appears that you are going to have to pay the full cost of the fence. It is wrong legally, and morally, to insist that he pay half the cost of the common fence. If at some point in the future, he decides to tie on to the new common fence, then he would have a moral obligation to reimburse you for half of it's cost. Legally - maybe. But you would probably have to file suit to recover your costs.