Shortly after Shannon moved into the house she built in Yanchep, north of Perth, she had a visitor from next door.
"My neighbour came around and has given me an invoice and a letter requesting payment for the rear fence that was built in 2005, 17 years ago, and I just moved into this house in February," Shannon told Damian Smith on ABC Radio Perth.
"He's only asking for $506, which is half of what he paid for the fence back then.
"It's not a huge amount, but it's just the fact that the fence has been there for 17 years, and he's held this receipt in his hand … waiting for the perfect time to come in and hand it off."
Shannon said she understood that under dividing fences legislation, she was responsible for half of costs associated with building and maintaining the fence, but the fence was far from new.
"I'm just disputing the fact that it's been 17 years since it was built … and he's still asking for half of the cost of the fence," she said.
"Now the fence is rusted. It's a different colour to all the rest of the fences. It's not even the same height [as surrounding fences]."
According to the WA Dividing Fences Act of 1961, if a landowner constructs a dividing fence and the owners of the adjoining block subsequently complete a substantial building or structure, "the owner who constructed the fence may give to the owner of the adjoining land a notice claiming the payment of half of the amount of the value of the fence as estimated at the date of the claim".
The previous owner of Shannon's block was not obliged to pay when the fence was built, because the land was vacant.
"While I know I need to, I'm required to pay, I'm just disputing the amount I should pay, given depreciation over the 17 years and the fact that the fence is rusted and yeah, not in good condition," she said.
Not worth fighting about: lawyer
Lawyer Johnson Kitto said while Shannon may have a claim to pay less, it probably wasn't worth a dispute with her new neighbour, as she would still be getting an advantage from the fence's existence.
"It's a fence that she's going to get the benefit of, because it's going to stop her dog wandering out, or it's going to give her some privacy and amenity," Mr Kitto said.
He said it was an interesting point, because according to the WA Limitation Act, normally a claim had to be brought within six years.
"With things like breaches in contract or negligence where someone might run through a traffic light and damage your car, the general rule is, it's six years from when the legal claim arises to when you can start a legal proceeding for it," he said.
"This man next door, he's on 17 years, and normally the statute of limitations would wipe him out.
"But in this case, according to the Dividing Fences Act, you don't have to pay a cracker at all if you don't have a dwelling on the house or some substantial building on the block.
"Once you construct that, then that triggers your liability under the Dividing Fences Act."
Mr Kitto said due to the age of the fence, a court would probably support Shannon paying a lesser amount, but he questioned whether it was worth a legal dispute.
"Imagine what the cost would be of constructing it today?" he said
"You've got to be fair about these things. The best advice I can give her is to simply pay it. I wouldn't try to negotiate with him. It's a relatively small amount.
"The law is on his side … and he is entitled to half the cost of the construction back then."
