Neighbor lets dogs out to do their business in my yard?

[Gary Fowler]

If one doesn't want intruders on their property, then place a good fence around it to keep everything out. That is the first thing I did when I got my property. It keeps my dogs in and others out. If you are in a rural area, you cant expect every person to keep his dogs chained up or inside and not all, in fact most folks, don't fence in their property completely.
We did it for a few reasons 1) we run cows and sometimes they would get out of the left open gate and roam about 2) we run dogs and didn't want them getting out on the road to get hit by a truck 3) we didn't want dogs coming in fighting with our dogs and / or destroying our property.
Any animal found inside my fence that is destroying or threatening my livestock gets the SSS treatment.

 

[RedNeckGeek]

If one doesn't want intruders on their property, then place a good fence around it to keep everything out.

If I had livestock, or if I had dogs, then yes, it would be my obligation to keep them on my property and my responsibility to erect a fence. Since I have neither, I see no reason why I should have to spend $$$$$ putting one up to keep animals owned by irresponsible people out. In fact my county has ordinances to this effect; all I'm doing is asking that they be enforced.ullinghair:

 

[TomSeller]

I see no reason why I should have to spend $$$$$ putting one up to keep animals owned by irresponsible people out.

Exactly. Good fences are not cheap.

 

[edkemper]

Gary Fowler,

> If one doesn't want intruders on their property, then place a good fence around it to keep everything out.

I live in a rural area on 160 acres. That is a piece of land that is one quarter mile wide and one mile long. A "good fence" costs $8,000 to $10,000 per mile. That means you feel I should pay a minimum of $20,000 to keep your dogs off my property?

Just so you understand RedNecGeek's local laws, any dog that comes onto his property and chases any of his livestock, he is legally authorized to shoot. He will not be held financially responsible under these conditions.

If his cow is on my property and my dog chases it and it is injured, I won't be held financially responsible.

Not too long ago, in or near a place called Folsom CA (suburb of Sacramento), a loose dog was seen chasing a rancher's cows and was shot. The dog owner arrived at the seen a few minutes later. Law enforcement was called and it was fully investigated. The rancher was not held liable.

> That is the first thing I did when I got my property. It keeps my dogs in and others out.

Most fences do not keep all animals out or in. Chain link keeps most in/out. A standard barbed wire fence is mostly to keep cows out. Most other animals are not prevented movement. Deer go over. Elk go through. Coyotes, rabbits, etc. don't even slow down. Same with most dogs, a barbed wire fence doesn't stop them.

I live in Rural Oregon. I am creating my fence line and it will be appropriately and legally marked with signs to establish my property boundary. This is to keep human intruders out. Legally, (for instance) cows can legally come onto my property without threat of death unless I create a fence to keep them out. On the other hand, I am legally allowed to shoot predators that threaten myself or my livestock on sight. Dogs are predators.

> If you are in a rural area, you can't expect every person to keep his dogs chained up or inside and not all, in fact most folks, don't fence in their property completely.

I don't expect you to do anything. However, you need to also understand, you can't expect me to allow your out of control dogs to live on my property. Simple and equal. I bought my land for my enjoyment and security. You bought your land for your enjoyment and security. If your dogs are on my property, their security ended when and where my security started. Unless I choose to allow them to roam on my property.

Personally, I love to see local wildlife on my property. Your loose dogs would interfere in my legal right to quiet enjoyment on my property.

> We did it for a few reasons 1) we run cows and sometimes they would get out of the left open gate and roam about

Not unlawful for them to get out. However, any damage they cause is borne by you. I would not have a right to shoot them just because they are eating my grass.

> 2) we run dogs and didn't want them getting out on the road to get hit by a truck

Where you would be responsible for any damage to that truck.

We fence in a much smaller area of our total property to contain our dogs that will be off leash. Protecting them from harm.

> 3) we didn't want dogs coming in fighting with our dogs and / or destroying our property.

It only happens once. Problem solved. Did't have to spend $20,000 to handle the problem either.

> Any animal found inside my fence that is destroying or threatening my livestock gets the SSS treatment.

Same here. As a side note, I even respect your right to "quiet enjoyment" because I am allowed to own a silencer. So what are we arguing about?

I saved $20,000 on expensive perimeter fencing so I could afford to invite you over for a beer. And I even respect you enough to make sure you don't even notice where I buried your dog. :drink:

 

[edkemper]

If I had livestock, or if I had dogs, then yes, it would be my obligation to keep them on my property and my responsibility to erect a fence. Since I have neither, I see no reason why I should have to spend $$$$$ putting one up to keep animals owned by irresponsible people out. In fact my county has ordinances to this effect; all I'm doing is asking that they be enforced.ulling hair:

RedNeck,

My new friend, huge difference between most urban and rural fence laws. In most rural places with open land, "simple" fences (like standard barbed wire) are constructed to keep roaming livestock like cows off "my" property. In rural areas, secure fences that would keep dogs contained on "my" property are the responsibility of the dog owner.

 

[RedNeckGeek]

FWIW, the only surveyor to respond out of the half dozen I canvassed quoted $7K to find the corners of my lot and mark the boundaries so that a fence could be built. Double that for materials and I'd have my fence. And that's not including the additional electric gate I'd need for the driveway, or the 'dozer rental to clear about 2/3 of the property line so that a fence was even possible. I'd be lucky to stay under $30K, and that's with me doing most of the work.

I'm pretty certain the neighbor would have absolutely no interest in paying their half of a "good neighbor" fence along our mutual boundary. They wouldn't contribute toward laying a land telephone line that would have given them reliable communications, instead preferring spotty cell service. They said they couldn't afford the $75/hour rate for the bulldozer I had on my property clearing brush for a summer, even when I asked for no help with the transport cost. Yet they have no problem affording a green house to raise their dope (since outlawed by recently enacted restrictions on growing), or a new electric gate across their driveway to protect it (they leave it open most of the time anyway).

Their idea of a fence is a single strand of hot wire along the top of a row of T-stakes. The deer break it inside of a week or two, and I end up digging it out of my rotary cutter. And get this: When the animal control lady asked them if they had a fence for their dog, they replied that they did, but that I tore it down!:shocked: That's not even the tip of the iceberg with it comes to these people (and I use the term loosely) :fiery:

Excuse me, I have to go take a pill...

 

[edkemper]

RedNeckGeek,

This may help. There may be more in other sections but this will help with a start.

CA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 841

841. (a) Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the
responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between
them.
(b) (1) Adjoining landowners are presumed to share an equal
benefit from any fence dividing their properties and, unless
otherwise agreed to by the parties in a written agreement, shall be
presumed to be equally responsible for the reasonable costs of
construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence.
(2) Where a landowner intends to incur costs for a fence described
in paragraph (1), the landowner shall give 30 days' prior written
notice to each affected adjoining landowner. The notice shall include
notification of the presumption of equal responsibility for the
reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary
replacement of the fence. The notice shall include a description of
the nature of the problem facing the shared fence, the proposed
solution for addressing the problem, the estimated construction or
maintenance costs involved to address the problem, the proposed cost
sharing approach, and the proposed timeline for getting the problem
addressed.
(3) The presumption in paragraph (1) may be overcome by a
preponderance of the evidence demonstrating that imposing equal
responsibility for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance,
or necessary replacement of the fence would be unjust. In
determining whether equal responsibility for the reasonable costs
would be unjust, the court shall consider all of the following:
(A) Whether the financial burden to one landowner is substantially
disproportionate to the benefit conferred upon that landowner by the
fence in question.
(B) Whether the cost of the fence would exceed the difference in
the value of the real property before and after its installation.
(C) Whether the financial burden to one landowner would impose an
undue financial hardship given that party's financial circumstances
as demonstrated by reasonable proof.
(D) The reasonableness of a particular construction or maintenance
project, including all of the following:
(i) The extent to which the costs of the project appear to be
unnecessary or excessive.
(ii) The extent to which the costs of the project appear to be the
result of the landowner's personal aesthetic, architectural, or
other preferences.
(E) Any other equitable factors appropriate under the
circumstances.
(4) Where a party rebuts the presumption in paragraph (1) by a
preponderance of the evidence, the court shall, in its discretion,
consistent with the party's circumstances, order either a
contribution of less than an equal share for the costs of
construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence, or
order no contribution.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Landowner" means a private person or entity that lawfully
holds any possessory interest in real property, and does not include
a city, county, city and county, district, public corporation, or
other political subdivision, public body, or public agency.
(2) "Adjoining" means contiguous to or in contact with.

 

[RedNeckGeek]

RedNeckGeek,

This may help. There may be more in other sections but this will help with a start.

CA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 841

841. (a) Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the
responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between
them.
[SNIP]

That's a good one, edkemper :thumbsup: Have you had to invoke that or a similar ordinance before? If so, how did it go?

Let me think out loud here for a minute and try to extrapolate what a solution that relies on this statute might involve.

Turns out that about half my perimeter is a shared boundary with the neighbor, and only half of that is useable land that would be worth fencing (the rest is too steep and overgrown). So let's just say that they'd be expected to share the cost of half the common boundary, or 815'. But wait. There's also a 330' easement that I have across his property that provides the sole ingress to my plot. The biggest problem I'm facing is the dog chasing the motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians on that part of the driveway. I've already had my proposal to build a fence there refused by the neighbor. So I'd better add another 330' of fence to the plan, bringing the shared fence total to 1145'. Based on the figures in your earlier post and assuming $9K/mile ($1.70/ft.), that's about $1945, and his half would be $973.25. Did your figures include the cost of labor? You'll see in a minute why that would be important in this situation. By the way, from a historical perspective, that amount is about twice the contribution he was asked to make for the phone line I mentioned earlier.

Now as close to the 30 day deadline as possible after I've submitted my plan to this gem of a man, I'm certain I'll receive a nice letter form the neighbor's attorney containing some BS excuse for why he can't afford to participate. At which point I'll be contacting my attorney to arrange a court date. Around here a decent attorney runs about $300/hour, and most want a $3K retainer before they'll agree to go to court with you. Then you get in line to get jacked around on dates and times with the court system, and maybe even have to endure a preliminary hearing or two before you even see a real judge, just to make sure all your ducks are in order. Maybe not, but that's what my attorney's for. Then when you finally get your day, you hope you get a judge that actually gives a flying squirrel about making a just decision. I also know I can count on this scum bag to have no respect for the truth, and I'm sure he'll find a lawyer with principles equal to his own. Thus the burden of proof with regard to need will be entirely mine. That's where the dog photos and videos come in I suppose. Unless the other side comes up with some kind of dirty trick, let's say that's enough so that I win the case. The statute doesn't mention court costs and legal fees, so worst case is I'm out at least $3K so far, just to have a judge tell me that the neighbor needs to share in the cost of the fence.

Since I've prevailed, I can just see this schmuck offering up the labor of his two dead beat sons to do the work. He might even ask the judge to stipulate they be allowed to contribute their own labor to offset actual financial participation. How do you think that working relationship is going to go? I've already seen what passes for good enough at their place, and I think no fence at all would be better than what they could produce. Would I be forced to let them try, and then have to go back for another round with the courts when it turns into a train wreck? Or can I force them to pay a fair wage for my labor, or insist that a mutually agreeable contractor be hired? That's why I asked about the cost of labor in your earlier estimate.

Then there's the who pays for what part, and when. I suppose that should be in the plan as well, huh? And what do you think happens when the lovely neighbor tries to stiff me for his end? Maybe some kind of escrow account is in order?

Then there's the matter of who gets to decide what kind of fence gets built? Better get that into the plan, too, and make sure the judge signs off on that as well, right?

At the end of the day, I'll have 25% of the fence built, and since my legal fees were three times what the neighbor's share of the fence was, it would have been cheaper just to pay for the job myself and retain control of design and construction. If I went that route, could the neighbor use some sort of legal dodge to try to stop me?

Not trying to be a negative Nellie here, but I'd still have to fence the remainder of the property on to keep the dogs out. Otherwise they'd just run around the ends of the 25% shared portion. I'd have to give some thought as to what benefit I'd realize from that other 75% and a total cost to me of $11,500 (which includes 'dozer rental to clear another 1000' or so of fence line). Wait one, add another $7K for the surveyor, to $18,500 all together. Might be able to run a few head of cattle now (the plot is only 13 acres total), but I'd have to add a few strands of barbed wire to the top of that fence and another fence line around the house to keep the cattle away. The neighbor man would probably argue that barbed wire would be on my nickle because he only raises goats and sheep. The easement would be fenced, and that wouldn't have happened without a fight. The property boundary would be legally registered, and that might make a future sale easier. A fence might keep trespassers out, but so far the steep incline, choking manzanita and poison oak are doing a pretty good job of that. Might add to the property value, but since I pretty much intend to die here, somebody else would benefit and I'd probably end up paying more on my property taxes after the assessor got done with me. Which reminds me, I'd have to find out if a permit is needed to build a fence. Right about now I'm running out of benefits on that fence. Relations with the neighbor are anything but friendly now, so how much better do you think they'd be after I force him to pay for his share of a fence he doesn't want and $3K in legal fees?

So far the numbers don't scare me, there's no good will to lose with the neighbor, and even though the whole court thing would be a PITA, I'd do it if necessary. At the end of the day though, the only reason for going through all this is because the neighbor isn't abiding by another county ordinance that says he has to control his animals well enough to keep them off my property and stop threatening my ingress and egress. What am I missing?:confused3:

 

[edkemper]

RedNeck,

First off, keep in mind I am not an attorney even though I might play one on TV. This is not intended to be legal advice that you should use in court. However it is what I've learned along the way and mostly in CA. I'm just a guy that is not afraid of a challenge and has the time and enjoyment of doing research.

> That's a good one, edkemper :thumbsup: Have you had to invoke that or a similar ordinance before? If so, how did it go?

I am about to do the same thing on my property. It is fairly straight forward. On the other hand for you, it is CA. Smile

> Turns out that about half my perimeter is a shared boundary with the neighbor, and only half of that is useable land that would be worth fencing (the rest is too steep and overgrown).

I think you have to be reasonable. If there is no benefit to fencing part of it, don't. Just my opinion. But part of the decision of reasonable is considering the neighbor. If he won't control his dogs, what is reasonable changes.

> So let's just say that they'd be expected to share the cost of half the common boundary, or 815'.

Okay.

> There's also a 330' easement that I have across his property that provides the sole ingress to my plot. The biggest problem I'm facing is the dog chasing the motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians on that part of the driveway.

Negotiate. Either they control their dogs to avoid conflict or I think you have a reason to fence. In a manner of speaking, it is up to them.

> I've already had my proposal to build a fence there refused by the neighbor.

Of course. However, they are legally responsible.

> So I'd better add another 330' of fence to the plan, bringing the shared fence total to 1145'. Based on the figures in your earlier post and assuming $9K/mile ($1.70/ft.), that's about $1945, and his half would be $973.25.

Again, assuming you hire someone to do it. I would absolutely start with getting three estimates since he is going to fight. Estimates don't cost but are valuable in the fight. Run an add on Craigslist but get written estimates from business owners with business licenses. Not the day labor pool on the corner.

> Did your figures include the cost of labor? You'll see in a minute why that would be important in this situation.

If you are going to do the work yourself, I believe a reasonable hourly labor charge is legal. What is reasonable can be established by the estimates.

I am charging for clearing trees from the property line. Knocking them down and removing them. However I am also making the clearing extra wide so I can use it as a road. That extra work I can't reasonably charge them for. I have a tractor and am keeping details on every hour that is used for both our benefit. Plus a value for my wife and son's labor.

> By the way, from a historical perspective, that amount is about twice the contribution he was asked to make for the phone line I mentioned earlier.

I'm sure you can understand that what the professionals (phone line) would charge is what they charge. You'd both have to pay half for any shared benefit. (So to speak. One of the questions for the attorney)

> I'm certain I'll receive a nice letter form the neighbor's attorney containing some BS excuse for why he can't afford to participate.

They assumed the liability when they bought their land. That is basically what they law says. At the very least, you'd probably be able to put a lien on the property. That would insure you'd get paid eventually. It would certainly put a crimp in their future. On the other hand, a court may make them pay right away. Including the attorney costs and fees.

> Around here a decent attorney runs about $300/hour, and most want a $3K retainer before they'll agree to go to court with you.

The one thing I learned, don't go to just any attorney. There are attorneys that have all the special knowledge of these types of disputes. They may not even make you pay a retainer. You have to find out. The chances are, this would never go to court. It's really a simple case. The work gets done and they owe you half. Taking it to court could quadruple what your neighbor would have to pay and not increase your cost a penny. Can't say it wouldn't happen but it's hard to believe your neighbor would be so idiotic as to put his home and property in jeopardy. They could be forced to sell to settle your claim. Not many would take that chance on a clear legal liability.

> Then you get in line to get jacked around on dates and times with the court system, and maybe even have to endure a preliminary hearing or two before you even see a real judge, just to make sure all your ducks are in order. Maybe not, but that's what my attorney's for.

While I understand your fear, I've been involved in hundreds of legal cases and few of them with such clear issues and liability and few went the way you describe above. But the most expensive ones (I won) were against large corporations with very deep pockets that had big law firms that just drew it out for their own profits. Your case won't be the same.

> I also know I can count on this scum bag to have no respect for the truth,

The law is fairly straight forward.

> Thus the burden of proof with regard to need will be entirely mine.

Wants and needs are not issues here. You have a legal right to fence your property. They have a legal liability to pay half. If there were sections where fencing would be ridiculous and you didn't do those sections, that would look good to the court. Be reasonable and the courts will take notice. You're not going to the Supreme Court where powerful political influence is involved.

> That's where the dog photos and videos come in I suppose.

That would help.

> The statute doesn't mention court costs and legal fees, so worst case is I'm out at least $3K so far, just to have a judge tell me that the neighbor needs to share in the cost of the fence.

However, if an attorney is required, I believe that is part of the cost of the fence. I think that statute covers that. I can't do the further research for you at the moment but after living in CA for 60+ years and being very active in the legal system, I can "almost" guarantee there is a statute that says the prevailing party (the winner) gets to collect the legal fees and costs. I never had to pay the loosing sides legal costs and fees.

> Since I've prevailed, I can just see this schmuck offering up the labor of his two dead beat sons to do the work.

Not an issue. The work has already been done and the only issue is the cost and their share. They cannot force you to use their labor force. This is an issue of you doing the work or having paid for it) and then it goes to court. The labor costs need to be fair. You can't charge what a doctor charges but you could charge what it's cost to hire it out at the very most. Just because I can't afford to hire it out wit up front costs doesn't mean my doing the work myself is worth any less. The three estimates would be helpful. Perhaps you charge them the lower of middle estimate. The courts are not usually totally unfair.

I've taken cases worth the court's set limit to small claims court. It's a little intimidating but is doable. Without attorney's fees, you might be within the recoverable limits. Just a thought. If you got the guts, it can be fun. Small Claims Court is run a lot looser than regular court. I've taken on municipalities successfully in CA small Claims Court.

> Then there's the who pays for what part, and when. I suppose that should be in the plan as well, huh? And what do you think happens when the lovely neighbor tries to stiff me for his end? Maybe some kind of escrow account is in order?

The court sets the amount. They are given a fairly short time to pay. If they don't pay as the court mandates, you could force the sale of their property to settle your claim. It's not something where they are going to let that happen. Either way, it's their choice. Hard to believe they would be that ignorant. Stupid yes. But that ignorant when they have their own attorney explain their liability? Not likely.

> Then there's the matter of who gets to decide what kind of fence gets built? Better get that into the plan, too, and make sure the judge signs off on that as well, right?

Nope. The judge doesn't care. The judge only decides if it was reasonable. You can't build a gold plated fence. But a standard fence that is used in similar situations, is reasonable. Rural areas that would likely be a barbed wire fence or a small wire fence. In a residential neighborhood needing to keep dogs in or out, a wood fence at the very least I would guess.

> At the end of the day, I'll have 25% of the fence built, and since my legal fees were three times what the neighbor's share of the fence was, it would have been cheaper just to pay for the job myself and retain control of design and construction. If I went that route, could the neighbor use some sort of legal dodge to try to stop me?

Again, be reasonable and if the fence is needed, you create the fence and then you go to court. They had a chance to negotiate and share the cost during the planning and execution of the job. They refused. Now they live with the results.

> Not trying to be a negative Nellie here, but I'd still have to fence the remainder of the property on to keep the dogs out.

Not really. They will get the idea you mean business. You'd also give them a copy of the law regarding vicious dogs. In town, things are different. In more rural areas, things are easier. Vicious dogs chasing me and mine and/or chasing my livestock will be dealt with. I will not be posting the results on Facebook.

> Wait one, add another $7K for the surveyor, to $18,500 all together.

It cost me (I over paid) $2500 for a professional surveyor to come out and mark my property line (one mile) with pink flags on T-posts post and on tree branches. I'm 45 minutes out of town.

After one case where you enforced the law, your neighbor would likely decide it ain't worth fighting with you. They won't be inviting you over for dinner but you'd likely not be going to court against them ever again. Most of the time, money is weighed. Is the cost worth the fight. The first one, maybe. After that, not likely.

For me, The fight will be worth the reimbursement of my fencing. After that, I'm not likely to have any dealings with my neighbor except when he receives a bill for fixing the fence when an elk crashes through it or a tree falls on it. But those bills will be very minor. It's likely only and hour of time and equipment I already own. A $50 bill at most. Again, not enough to warrant paying for an attorney to fight it. We'll both be dead before the fence will need re-building.

> So far the numbers don't scare me, there's no good will to lose with the neighbor, and even though the whole court thing would be a PITA, I'd do it if necessary.

Now your in my boat. As you say, no real loss of good will. I'm not the one that will find the expense worth the fight.

> At the end of the day though, the only reason for going through all this is because the neighbor isn't abiding by another county ordinance that says he has to control his animals well enough to keep them off my property and stop threatening my ingress and egress.

Controlling his dogs would avoid the fight. However, since that is not the case, your shared fence will make both of your properties worth more, at half the cost.

> What am I missing?

Only a good, reasonable neighbor. But your other neighbors will likely become great neighbors. Especially because you will have likely taken care of their similar problem at the same time. So to speak, thanks for the help.

In my case, it'll probably work out that it could have cost my neighbor perhaps $3-5000 plus the approx $800 land trade. Remember, he's already into me for $2500 for the surveyor. Instead, it's likely to be (1.25 miles of fence) closer to $7-8,000 plus the cost of him hiring a dozer and operator at retail and paying to few thousand for delivery and pick-up for the 45 miles from town to create his own roads within his property. Not to mention non-access to his property during the winter. All of these things make his property worth thousands less than it could have been. Plus as is the case with very small communities, he won't be forgotten by his other neighbors.

Good luck my friend.

 

[RedNeckGeek]

edkemper, you've given me much to think about and some options as well. Thank you! :thumbsup:

For now things are still quiet and if the status quo remains I'll leave the fence alone. I will still get the property surveyed though, and will aim to find a surveyor in time for next winter when the leaves drop and access is better. That'll speed things up if/when the fence becomes a top priority.

Yesterday a neighbor dropped off an invite to a hoedown they're hosting in May. The wife was just going to leave it at the gate but I happened to be up there collecting the mail. I couldn't help but notice that she didn't stop by my neighbor's mailbox on her way out... :laughing: