“Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” Rice v. Kringler, 517 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Minn.App.1994). “Findings of the trial court must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.”
"Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo." Rice v. Kringler, 517 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Minn. App. 1994). "Findings of the trial court must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous."
But Minn. Stat. § 344.04 only requires that the parties receive sufficient notice of the fence viewing itself and of their obligation to construct a fence pursuant to the viewers' order, not that the petitioner provide the viewers and the delinquent party with notice of a default prior to remedying the situation. See Rice v. Kringler, 517 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Minn. App. 1994) (stating that section 344.04 requires "sufficient notice of the fence viewing"); Miles v. Althoff, 373 N.W.2d 655, 658-59 (Minn. App. 1985) (Nierengarten, J., concurring specially) (stating that the notice in section 344.04 "serves only the purpose of giving appellant a chance to view the fence with the fence viewers and the opportunity to persuade them that the fence is not in need of repair. The more important notice is the second notice required under 344.