There’s also nothing saying the Fence Wanter can’t just respect the desire of his/her neighbor and pay 100%. That seems much more neighborly than saying hey I want this and you’ll pay for half or I’m taking you to court.
One issue might be that from a legal standpoint, you might not be able to actually make this statement. Likely the fence can be repaired. Leaning posts can be straightened. Rotted posts can be replaced. Individual boards can be replaced as needed. If he were to look at the fence, he might instead make minor improvements by himself. So it’s not a given that the whole fence needs to be torn down and replaced. If it’s just old and ugly, I don’t think you can force him to pay. If it’s completely non-functional, then it seems you could force him to split costs. I would guess your fence is somewhere in the middle, which means he could have a legal reason to argue your claim.
When the fences between me and some of my neighbors got replaced, we all paid half of the fence that was on our property. Since your neighbor asked you up front, and you said yes, I’d pay half. He had to deal with the contractors, so you are getting off easy.
The only exception would be if someone put up a fence totally on their property without asking. (When I was growing up these were called spite fences.) In that case, he pays all.
The presumption is that if a fence was necessary, it would have been built when the houses were built. Like the sewerage, power and water.
I’ve never lived someplace where it was the norm for no fences between properties. It is presumed that you do want a fence, and there’s a law to handle the building of one. NZ Fencing law
Note that it allows for an adequate fence. That cost is shared. If you want to build Stalag XIII, then you can only expect half the cost of the adequate fence, not of the electrified barbed wire monstrosity you want. (I don’t think you’re going to be able to build that either, but I have seen some pretty egregious infringements of good taste out there.)
Looks good. Include the date, and your mailing address to be completely formal. If you want to get more firm, you could tweak this line as follows:
“If I do not hear from you by (30 days — by 31 March?), I will take that as your acceptance of my proposal, and proceed with this fence replacement with the understanding that you will share the cost as outlined above.”
Proof of delivery at a minimum. Signature required if you think he’ll actually sign for it.
Just in case you end up in court, take pictures from all angles of the problems with the fence. It might not hurt to ask the contractors to be detailed in their description of the issues with the fence. In other words, be prepared to back up with replacement is the proper course, compared to repair.
Also, be prepared to eat the cost for a while. You may not get quick reimbursement.
Thanks for the feedback. This fence is completely shot, and has been for 15 years.
That CA law states:
“(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.”
I made sure my letter has all the required elements, and since it does, the law therefore makes him responsible for half the cost. I’ll send it certified. I am ready to pay for the fence myself. I want it done. But knowing that the law presumptively makes him and me responsible for the cost, as long as my written notice contains those elements, lets me know I can demand payment from him if he does not respond within 30 days. I hope he responds, and I hope we work together to replace the fence. It’ll be a basic replacement and not a significant upgrade. But if he does not respond then I will move forward, replace the fence, and request payment.
Whether or not I receive that payment is a different thing altogether.
The very beginning of that civil code section states,
**“CHAPTER 2. Obligations of Owners [840 - 848] ( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )
(a) Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them.”**
IANAL, but maintaining that boundary may require a new fence where none existed before because the boundary requirements are defined by the occupants on both sides of the boundary, and the new occupant now needs a fence whereas the previous occupant did not. I can see a judge ruling that a fence is now required, and its cost shared.
However the cost sharing might not be equal in your example because the court will (“shall”) consider, when **“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.”** (and other considerations)
So maybe the cost sharing would be ruled to be 33/67 or 25/75, or even 10/90.
I’m sure somebody might presume that, but the CA statute doesn’t appear to. 
I agree with these points: in the letter, make it clear that if you don’t hear from him, you still expect him to pay half (Sunny Daze’s language is good)
And document everything. If it comes to small claims court, and you show up with an organized folder with pictures of the fence before and after, copies of letters to him, with dates and certified mail receipts, a summary of every phone conversation (written down immediately after the call), etc., and the other guy comes in with “well, the way I remember it was…”, then I know who the judge is going to pay more attention to.
And they don’t need to. If there is a fence today, the fence wasn’t always there. At some point in time, years or decades ago, somebody somewhere realized a fence was needed, and it was built. That may have been both homeowners who collectively agreed it was needed, or it may have been just one who did while the other grumbled. Or it may have been built when the homes were first built, and the first owners bought and moved in with the fence was already there.
So, CA law does not need to consider how, when, or why the fence became necessary.
Similarly, you can have neighbors who decide, for whatever reason, to remove a fence. CA law stipulates that the expense (to remove or build or otherwise maintain) is shared so long as the notification requirements have been met.
I like Sunny Daze’s verbiage but I plan to word it a little differently.
SD: “If I do not hear from you by (30 days — by 31 March?), I will take that as your acceptance of my proposal, and proceed with this fence replacement with the understanding that you will share the cost as outlined above.”
Bullitt: "If I do not hear from you by (30 days — by 31 March?), please be advised that California law allows me to proceed with this proposal and also requires that you pay for half the cost. I do look forward to hearing from you.”
And thanks, Quercus, your (and others’) points are well taken and I will be documenting everything.
Half, it will be money well-spent w/ no measurable downside.
See sections 3: B, C, & D.
What that means is, if the properties have been OK with no fence for the last 15 years, you have to do more than just say: “I want it”.
The state presumes that both neighbors will benefit from a fence being erected. The sections you mention don’t change that presumption.
Those sections are the means by which the neighbor may overcome the presumption with a preponderance of evidence.
I don’t know if you are being legalistic (which is fair enough), or just argumentative. In practice, provisions like those mean that when your neighbour goes to court to enforce payment, he looses.
The people who advise you to pay less than half when you are able to pay half are exactly why people have shitty relationships with their neighbours. Consider the difference between the value you think you got and half the cost a ‘good neighbor tax’. There are few things worse than feuding with your neighbours. You see them basically every day. If they’re inclined, they can make your life miserable. Pay half and pay it happily.