90.09 Partition when land bounded by water.
(1) When the boundary line between enclosed lands owned by different persons is a river, brook, pond or creek, which of itself is not a sufficient fence, and it is impracticable, without unreasonable expense, for a partition fence to be built on the true boundary line, and either owner or occupant refuses to join in making a partition fence on either side of the river, brook, pond or creek, or they disagree respecting making a partition fence, either party may apply to 2 or more fence viewers of the town, who, after giving notice as provided in s. 90.07, shall proceed to view the river, brook, pond or creek.
(2) If the fence viewers determine that the river, brook, pond or creek is not a sufficient fence and that it is impracticable, without unreasonable expense, to build a fence on the true boundary line, the fence viewers shall, in writing under their hands, determine how or on which side of the river, brook, pond or creek the fence shall be built or whether the fence shall be built partly on one side and partly on the other side. The fence viewers shall assign to each owner or occupant that owner's or occupant's share of the fence and the time within which the respective parties shall build the fence. The fence viewers shall file their determination in the office of the town clerk, who shall record the determination.
(3) If either party refuses or neglects to build that party's part of the fence within the time assigned by the fence viewers, the other party may, after having completed his or her own part, build the other party's part and recover the expense of building the other party's part of the fence as provided under s. 90.11.
(4) If the fence viewers determine that it is impracticable, either from the formation of the banks of the river, brook, pond or creek or for any other reason, to maintain any fence along or near the boundary line, they shall give written notice to the parties of that determination.
History: 1991 a. 316; 1997 a. 253.
This chapter's plain language, when read in light of s. 990.01 (42), unambiguously authorizes a city to administer the enforcement procedures of this chapter. White v. City of Watertown, 2019 WI 9, 385 Wis. 2d 320, 922 N.W.2d 61, 16-2259.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.