DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:40:04 -0600, "JerryMouse"
wrote:

Under most circumstances, yes.*

Never heard this argument - the fence was the other party's and placed
in all probability to comply with safety/zoning requirements because
of the pool.

Learn something new every day. You've heard of it now. Consider this: the
fence is not a pool fence - the fence is a property fence.

The fence was in place when the OP took title to his
property so the argument you make for "unjust enrichment" has no basis
in this instance.

1. Have you SEEN the neighbors in swim suits?
2. The owner paid more because of the fence (in all liklihood).
3. One can make the case that ALL the neighbors are enriched by the safety
features of the fence. The immediate neighbor more than anyone else.

2. If the neighbor puts up this new section of fence doesn't he have
to have your approval before he puts it on the property line,
otherwise he must put it just inside the property line?

If you say nothing when he erected the fence, you consented to its
placement. Where he puts the fence does not impact your obligations.
Either way, you're in for half.*

* Here's the drill. You are responsible for your portion of the cost
under the principle of unjust enrichment. At the first moment you
detect such a project underway, you must announce your opposition.
Failing to say anything, under the principle of "assent by silence,"
you implicitly conset to the construction and its attendant costs.

The OP has no obligation for the replacement or maintenance of his
neighbor's fence - it is solely the neighbors responsibility. Again
the fence was not a new addition but an existing feature of his
neighbor's property.

Nope. If it's a common fence - on the property line or close enough - its
value is shared. There's a difference between a property fence and a pool
fence: one has shared value, the other not.

Interestingly, much of contract law can be covered using "the fence"
concept as examples (the rest can be covered by the concepts of "the
bull" and "the pit").

When studying "the fence," you can get off into interesting areas
such as "no notice" (the fence was erected while you slept), "total
cost" (you consented - by silence - to the idea of a fence, but not
one made of polished marble with gold gryphens), and so on.

None of this is applicable to the instant case and it appears that it
is your intention to use obfuscation as the basis for your arguments!

Hey, that's what lawyers do. Although I admit, I've never handled a fence
case.