Because most people don't want the hassle or just can't afford to go to court to challenge this law, it has become the accepted practice for the farmer to expect the adjoining landowner to pay for one-half of the fencing and accept ongoing maintenance of the fence on the common boundary line they share. In many instances the fact that the residential landowner has no need for a fence has not deterred the adjoining farmer from fully expecting his neighbor to erect a portion of the shared boundary line fence at his expense solely to contain the farmer's cattle and crops. This is a great injustice. After all, a portion of our tax dollars already go to subsidize farming activities and there is no reason to expect us to personally supplement a neighbor for the agricultural lifestyle he has chosen to pursue.
As it stands, this law gives unfair advantage to the farmer. As the statute currently reads, the owner of an agricultural parcel can sue, but if you are a residential landowner and you are not considered agricultural, you cannot sue your neighbor farmer. (Also, since most farms are a business, utilizing government subsidies, etc., the cost of the fence can be taken off their taxes - the residential landowner does not have that advantage.) Although there are many farmers who would never consider asking a residential neighbor to pay for part of the shared boundary line fence, for every one of those there is one who will take advantage of this law, usually due to greed or spite over a disputed boundary line.
This law should be amended to recognize that if the adjoining landowner is not engaged in any agricultural pursuit, then the farmer is solely responsible to erect and maintain a boundary line fence to contain his agricultural activities.
The following is an excerpt from Agricultural Economics, Original Publication 8/91:
"While it is unlikely that neighboring farm landowners in Indiana could impose an agreement upon subsequent owners that there be no line fence, courts in two northeastern states (Vermont and New York) have held the "right-half rule" to be unconstitutional where rural residential landowners objected to building half the fence for a livestock farmer."
(Agricultural Economics, EC-657, Legal Affairs, Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Serv., West Lafayette, IN 47907; Indiana Farm Fence Laws, Gerald A. Harrison, Extension Economist, Dept. of Agricultural Economics; Paul D. Spillers, Attorney. (http://persephone.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/EC/Ec-657.html).
News Articles