Matthew Jay Hopkins v. John Robert Dickey, 16-1109

Hopkins and Dickey own adjoining parcels separated by a 600-foot partition fence; each historically maintained their respective 300-foot half under the traditional "right-hand rule."
Dickey rebuilt the west 300 feet (six-wire fence) after livestock repeatedly escaped through the east half, which was in poor repair.
Dickey notified Hopkins (verbally and in writing) to repair the east half; Hopkins refused and conceded the fence was jointly owned.
Township trustees viewed the fence, applied the right-hand rule, and ordered Hopkins to erect and maintain the east 300 feet as a lawful fence (five barbed wires, posts not more than ten feet apart).
Hopkins appealed the trustees’ decision to district court; after a bench trial the district court affirmed the viewers, ordering Hopkins to replace the east half with a five-stranded barbed wire fence (posts no more than twelve feet apart).
On appeal, Hopkins challenged (1) exclusion of evidence of a prior oral agreement absolving him, (2) the unequal allocation of construction specifications, and (3) that the court’s specification conflicted with Iowa Code § 359A.18.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of alleged prior oral agreement absolving Hopkins	Hopkins: oral promise by predecessor relieved him of maintenance duty; should be admissible	Dickey: alleged promise is hearsay, not recorded, and fails statute of frauds	Exclusion affirmed: statement was hearsay, not recorded as required by §359A.13, and irrelevant
Allocation/equalization of fence burden	Hopkins: law requires equal application and equalization; court improperly imposed detailed specs only on him	Dickey: he already rebuilt his half; requiring Hopkins to rebuild his deteriorated half equalizes burdens	Affirmed: ordering Hopkins to rebuild east half equalized burdens because Dickey’s half was in good repair
Validity of required specifications vs. §359A.18	Hopkins: court’s specs exceed or conflict with §359A.18; order may require more than statutory minimum	Dickey: viewers/court may require a lawful fence consistent with existing fence and local practice	Affirmed: §359A.18 sets minimum standard; viewers/court may require fence consistent with style/condition—no legal error
Standards of review for evidentiary/fence-viewing rulings	Hopkins: (implicit) district court erred as to law and evidence	Dickey: defer to district court’s factual findings and fence-viewers’ customary practice	Court applied abuse-of-discretion for evidentiary rulings and correction-of-errors-at-law for fence-viewing; factual findings upheld

McElroy v. State, 637 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2001) (standard for reviewing evidentiary and hearsay rulings)
Longfellow v. Sayler, 737 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa 2007) (appeals in fence-viewing cases reviewed for correction of errors at law; factual findings afforded deference)
Duncalf v. Ritscher Farms, Inc., 627 N.W.2d 906 (Iowa 2001) (duty of fence viewers to apportion shared costs to equalize burden)
Gravert v. Nebergall, 539 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1995) (chapter 359A applies equally to adjoining landowners)
Belork v. Latimer, 54 N.E.3d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (describing the right-hand rule in fence allocation)
Schnakenberg v. Schroeder, 367 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 1985) (discussion of the right-hand rule)