Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 90.03 (2026)
Partition fences; when required
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
90.0390.03 Partition fences; when required. The respective occupants of adjoining lands used and occupied for farming or grazing purposes, and the respective owners of adjoining lands when the lands of one of such owners is used and occupied for farming or grazing purposes, shall keep and maintain partition fences between their own and the adjoining premises in equal shares so long as either party continues to so occupy the lands, except that the occupants of the lands may agree to the use of markers instead of fences, and such fences shall be kept in good repair throughout the year unless the occupants of the lands on both sides otherwise mutually agree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: Stuart White v. City of Watertown, 922 N.W.2d 61 (Wis. 2019).
Stuart White v. City of Watertown, 922 N.W.2d 61 (Wis. 2019). “" Wis. Stat. § 90.03 (2015-16). 2 The statute assigns responsibility for the fence to all adjoining property owners, each of whom must bear maintenance expenses "in equal shares.”
White v. City of Watertown, 2017 WI App 78 (Wis. Ct. App. 2017). “The parties' implicit agreement that there is qualifying land in cities and villages finds support in Wis. Stat. § 90.03 , the section that generally determines which landowners and occupants must keep and maintain partition fences.”
Northrop v. Opperman, 2011 WI 5 (Wis. 2011). “, Thompson on Real Property: Second Thomas Edition § 90.03(a)(7), at 628 (1998) ('Where the exact location of a boundary line is not definitely known, a dispute involving the boundary line must be determined by looking to the conduct of the parties with reference thereto.”
Tomaszewski v. Giera, 2003 WI App 65 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “Wis. Stat. § 90.03 . If one of these persons fails to build or maintain his or her share of the fence, the aggrieved landowner may complain to the fence viewers, who are the town supervisors, city aldermen or village trustees.”
Stuart White v. City of Watertown (Wis. 2019). “The Whites, however, continue to graze their property, which means they——and the adjoining landowners——must keep and maintain partition fences between their respective properties: "[T]he respective owners of adjoining lands when the lands of one of such owners is used and…”
Greg Griswold v. Kenda Tisdale (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 90.03 for failing to “compensate Griswold the sum of at least $304.”
— Wis. Stat. § 90.03(a)(7) — 1 case
Northrop v. Opperman, 2011 WI 5 (Wis. 2011). “, Thompson on Real Property: Second Thomas Edition § 90.03(a)(7), at 628 (1998) ('Where the exact location of a boundary line is not definitely known, a dispute involving the boundary line must be determined by looking to the conduct of the parties with reference thereto.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.