Iowa Fence Law: Two More Fence Controversies Decided

September 13, 2007 | Erin Herbold

The Iowa courts have decided two more fence cases in recent weeks.  In the first case, township trustees were called to make a fence view in settlement of a dispute between two landowners. The township trustees assessed the costs of repairing the fence, apportioned costs between the parties, and determined trustee’s fees, clerk fees and set the appeal bond.  The trustees assessed $3000 in trustee’s fees and $1250 in clerk fees, of which the defendant was responsible for nearly $3000.  Also, the bond on appeal of the trustee’s determination was set at $20,000.  Though the defendant did file a Notice of Appeal, he did not do so within the thirty days allotted him by the court. Therefore, the court did not even address the high costs of trustee’s and clerk’s fees and the defendant was without recourse on that issue. 

Of note in this case, is the landowner’s recourse in the event that the other party does not comply with the trustee’s determination. Here, the trial court improperly forfeited the appeal bond to fund the fence work. The plaintiff’s remedy for executing judgment under the statute is a type of tax lien. If the fence is not fixed, within the allotted timeframe, the complaining landowner deposits the money for repair and trustee’s fees, and can recover those funds at the time taxes are collected from the offending landowner. Thus, disputes over the trustee’s fence finding can be costly and time-consuming for all parties involved. Kirby v. Ruchti, No. 7-263/06-0702, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 845 (Iowa Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2007). 

The second case involved existing partition fences and whether prior written agreements were binding on subsequent landowners.  Agreements by landowners regarding fences dividing property must be in writing to be enforceable.  If the agreement is recorded, it is binding on subsequent grantees and becomes a covenant running with the land. 

Here, the landowners agreed to bring their fence into a “tight condition.”  Specifically, the parties’ agreement required a “substantial woven wire” fence.  However, one landowner maintained only a barbed wire fence, not entirely of woven wire. The district court determined that the other landowner, by his failure to seek enforcement of the agreement (over almost 3 decades), acquiesced to the barbed-wire fence between the property. The district court put particular importance on the “fence viewers” determination that the fence was tight.  However, the Supreme Court cautioned that the district court should determine the issues anew, thus, make their own determination as to the condition of the fence. If the “fence viewers” decision is appealed to the trial court, their decision is not even admissible as evidence.

As a matter of law, the Supreme Court determined from the record at the district court level, that one landowner’s portion of the fence was not a tight fence, thus did not comply with the agreement of the parties.  Ultimately, the prior written agreement of the parties trumped any subsequent actions. Longfellov. Sayler, 737 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa Sup. Ct2007).