search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Maryland Fence Law As of press time, both the House and Senate


versions of a bill to repeal a St. Mary’s County fencing law (HB109/SB102) had passed their respective houses and crossed over, essentially making the repeal of Public Local Law Article 19, Chapter 43 “Fences” a done deal. Enacted in 1916, the law required neigh-


boring farmers in St. Mary’s County to install joint farm fences built to certain specifi cations (post-and-rail at four feet, bottom plank eight inches from ground, planks/rail no more than eight inches apart, etc.); the law goes on to de- tail how the fence is to be funded and main- tained. Legislators in the county believe the law to now be obsolete and that fencing issues are adequately covered by common law right of contribution by tenants in common. So what else does Maryland law say about farm fences? For that, we turn to Paul


Goeringer, an Extension Legal Specialist for the University of Maryland College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who wrote about the topic for the Agricultural Law Education Initiative. His article limits its scope to Maryland law, which includes applications to only three spe- cifi c counties (Howard, Kent and St. Mary’s). However, your county or other jurisdiction may have fencing ordinances or permitting require- ments that do not appear in State Law.


Maryland Fence Laws


Maryland has adopted the traditional English common law rule of “fence-in.” T e fence-in rule requires landowners to fence in livestock (which includes horses) to prevent livestock from damaging neighbors’ properties (Rich- ardson v. Milburn, 1857). T e common law puts the burden on the livestock owner to erect a division fence, or a fence separating two landowners. Landowners (farmers and non- farmers) without livestock are under no obliga- tion to construct a fence to keep livestock off their property. Maryland has adopted this rule through court decisions, and the Maryland leg- islature could modify this rule at any time. Maryland has no statewide statute or court decision defi ning the exact standards for con- structing a fence, although some counties do. It is inherent in the law that the fence be high enough to contain the livestock within. For horse fencing, the standard minimum height to discourage jumping is four and a half feet. However, for those pasturing ponies or giant breeds, the height may be diff erent.


Who Pays for the Fence? Under the fence-in rule, the horse farm owner


is required to build the fence, and neighbor-


ing landowners will not be required to share in this expense. T e owner of the horse farm is also be re- quired to keep the fence in good condition and to repair defects (Annapolis & Elkridge R.R. Co.).


Does this mean that


neighbors can take advan- tage of a property line fence without contribut- ing fi nancially to the construction of the fence? Yes.


Good Fence Agreements Make Good Neighbors


Maryland has no law prohibiting two neigh-


Your fences should be horse-high, pig-tight and bull-strong.


boring landowners from agreeing to share the costs of erecting a division fence even though one or neither of the landowners may own livestock. In some areas of Mary- land, it has been customary that two livestock owners split costs for the maintenance and construction of a


division fence. T e problem with this custom is that new owners may not know the custom exists; parties may want to consider written agreements to determine how costs will be allocated. T is agreement should lay out how costs will be shared, the standard by which the fence’s condition will be measured, a dispute resolution process, and other conditions for the construction and upkeep of the fence.


Howard, Kent & St. Mary’s Counties


Howard County, Kent County, and St.


Mary’s County take a diff erent approach in their county ordi- nances from Maryland’s fence- in view. T ese three counties have been granted this author- ity by the state to: 1. Regulate the construction and maintenance of fences; 2. Provide for a procedure to enforce the rights of parties with reference to a fence; and 3. Provide for a lien for repairs to a fence made by an owner who is not in default (Md. Local Gov’t Code Ann. § 10-318). T ese county ordinances on fences clarify many of the unresolved issues in Maryland, and specify the minimum height and strength of a fence, how construction and maintenance costs will be allocated, and a procedure for collecting unpaid costs. Adjoining landowners in Howard County are


T ese ordinances also provide for processes to collect unpaid repair costs after written no- tice to the neighboring landowners. Howard and Kent counties require the appointment of non-interested third parties to determine if the repairs are necessary and determine a cost for the repairs. In Howard County, this determi- nation is made before the fence is repaired and the landowner seeking the other landowner to pay construction or maintenance costs will not have to spend more than the amount set by the three disinterested landowners. T e county ordinances help clarify many is- sues unresolved in Maryland law, such as allo- cation of construction and maintenance costs. T e possibility still exists for a fencing agree- ment to be used by neighboring landowners to further specify the allocation of construction and maintenance costs and responsibilities. Howard, Kent, and St. Mary’s counties have


Anytime you see a turtle up on top of a fence post, you know he had some help. - Alex Haley


clarifi ed the height and strength of fences, methods for allocating construction and main- tenance costs, and ways to collect unpaid costs. T ese county ordinances help clarify many of the issues that exist in the fence-in view and specify when neighboring landowners may be required to contribute to construction and maintenance of a division fence. Farm own- ers in other counties will want to check their own ordinances to ensure that ordinances impacting fences have not been recently en- acted. Livestock owners and


neighboring property owners in these counties should pay attention to their county ordinances. One fi nal note on fencing ordinances: Kent


required to share the costs of constructing and maintaining a fence dividing their properties, and in Howard County, the fence cannot be within fi ve miles of the City of Baltimore.


County’s ordinance appears to create a duty to fence out (Kent County Code § 87-5). T e language of the ordinance places the respon- sibility on property owners to have suffi cient fences to enclose their property, and property owners could potentially be liable for damages caused to a neighbor’s livestock who wander onto the property. Two disinterested and re- spectable neighboring property owners will be appointed to award livestock damages (§ 87- 5). At least in Kent County, landowners would want to make sure they have a fence suffi cient to keep livestock off their property and to pre- vent injury to the livestock.


To read the full version of Paul Goeringer’s article, see this article on equiery.com for the link. http://umaglaw.org/publications-library/ www.equiery.com | 800-244-9580


APRIL 2017 | THE EQUIERY | 29


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76