Below is my column on Fox.com on the land dispute of Gov. Josh Shapiro. The only thing murkier than the legal merits is the political implications of the litigation. Welcome to the intersection of adverse possession and American politics.
Here is the column:
Poet Robert Frost once said that “good fences make good neighbors.” He apparently never met Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who is being sued by his neighbors for effectively squatting on their land and then seizing it to install a fence along his $830,500 private residence in suburban Philadelphia. The litigation is likely to put Shapiro in a much different light for many who think of him as a 2028 contender.
The irony of the case is crushing. Shapiro opposed Trump’s plan to build a wall along the southern border, declaring that he would sue before a dime of Pennsylvania money went to pay for it. He apparently adopted a similar approach to his neighbors in Pennsylvania. The difference is that he built the wall, but without giving his neighbors a dime.
Shapiro has long wanted a 2,900-square-foot parcel of land located between the two homes in Abington, Montgomery County. The problem is that his neighbors like their land and want to keep it. They turned down multiple offers from Shapiro.
Jeremy and Simone Mock allege that Shapiro effectively became a squatter by using the state police to bar them from their own property and then building an eight-foot security fence.
After the Mocks sued, Shapiro countersued, claiming that the land was now his through “adverse possession.” He basically claimed that they abandoned the land despite their repeatedly trying to gain entry and repeatedly turning down his offers to buy it.
Welcome to the world of adverse possession. It is a doctrine dating back to 2000 B.C., and the Code of Hammurabi, allowing people to acquire title to land abandoned by owners over a long period of time. A really long time.
From the Romans to the British to the earliest days of the American Republic, adverse possession has been recognized as a valid means of acquiring title in the United States. It was particularly valuable after people acquired or claimed vast tracts of land out West, only to leave them undeveloped and unoccupied. As settlers moved West, they often cultivated the land, built structures, and lived openly for years before the original owners reclaimed it. Adverse possession was an efficient rule that allowed land to be put to productive use.
Under Pennsylvania law, you must prove actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile possession of the land for 21 years. Shapiro clearly has the hostile part down, but the Mocks are claiming that he effectively used state police to bar them from their land and then claimed that they abandoned it.
Each side is portraying the other as dishonest and opportunistic.
In their complaint, the Mocks allege that the Shapiros made “previous acknowledgments that the Mock Property was owned by no one other than the Mocks.” They document that the Shapiros did not want to pay the asking price, so the Mocks offered to lease the land to them. The Shapiros allegedly agreed but then backed out.
The Mocks declare, “what followed was an outrageous abuse of power by the sitting Governor of Pennsylvania and its former Attorney General.” Shapiro declared the property was his.
The Mocks objected that they had been paying taxes to the state on the disputed property for nine years.
The Shapiros claim that from 2003 to 2025, they mowed the lawn, cleared leaves, and removed other debris from the land as if it were their own. Accordingly, they claim that the 21-year period has passed and with it the title to the land. They further allege that, after buying the property in April 2017, the Mocks did not claim the land or challenge the location of an existing fence. However, they did so in October 2025.
Shapiro maintains that the Mocks never even knew the property was theirs until he informed them of the results of a recent survey.
The fascinating element is the use of state troopers to keep the Mocks off their land. The complaint even shows a picture of two troopers, stating, “these members of the State Police are on the Mock Property. Behind the officers are the arborvitae that the Shapiros planted on the Mock Property without permission and over the Mocks’ express objections.”
With the required 21 years only barely passed, any period in which the Mocks contested the possession could unravel the adverse possession claim. In the meantime, few people are likely to be sympathetic with the Shapiros taking property from a neighbor. Adverse possession rarely sits well with people, but it is more palatable when the owner has been absent and dilatory.
Here, the owners are very much present and vocal.
The optics are also worsened by the fact that the state has been struggling to address a squatting crisis where people occupy other people’s homes and then refuse to leave during years of litigation. Shapiro is accused of being a squatter with a state trooper contingent to back him up. It is not clear what would be worse for Shapiro — to lose or to win — in taking his neighbor’s property without compensation.
The dispute has already made its way into the political arena, where Shapiro is running for reelection. One of his opponents, Stacy Garrity, posted a Valentine’s Day message on social media with Shapiro’s face that said: “I love you more than I love my neighbor’s yard.”
The fact is that there are credible arguments on both sides of this dispute. For Shapiro, the question is whether he can afford to win.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Well no surprise the liberal trolls are out telling lies to support Shapiro’s theft of property. Shapiro is a Democrat, all today’s Democrats are communist and communist will always steal what they want from you, even your wife. A tactic in the USSR was for a powerful Communist to denounce the husband of a woman he was interested in, getting the poor guy a long prison term or camp term in Siberia where most people died and then steal and marry the guys former wife. She also knew if she refused she would meet the same fate.
So a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a Communist and a vote to have your property stolen from you. Even DeNiro a TDS suffering celeb is now whining about Mamdani trying to steal his money with a wealth tax. People love stealing from the rich, but don’t realize as that money disappears they will be the new rich as the communist lower the bar on who qualifies as rich and it will be their money now being stolen.
I would be interested in more details about the alleged parties to the “storm water management plan” identified in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. Likewise, identification of the years involved in the actions described in Paras 20 and 21.
Details could affect the
“actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct and hostile possession of the land for 21 years'” required under
https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvania/title-42/chapter-55/section-5530/
What IS interesting is the lawyer. The Mocks seemed to have hired Walter S. Zimolong III. A lawyer who specializes in conservative causes and represents Republican lawmakers. He was the Trump campaign lawyer in Pennsylvania who argued for Trump in his election fraud claims. Funny how the Mocks “happened” to have hired a lawyer who is well politically connected to the state’s Republican Party.
Typically silly comment from X. Private parties can hire any licensed attorney they want. Their lawsuit has nothing to do with party politics. They want their land back regardless of who took it. That is not difficult for most people to understand.
Josh’s lawyer brain got ahead of his common sense political brain, which usually works pretty good. Shapiro’s legal brain told him that it was close enough to abandonment to make a case. As a point of law, not a point of politics. As a lawyer, Josh saw this as a case that was winnable as a property dispute in Common Pleas Court, so why not take the land, and risk the litigation. Josh also may think that the property’s owner might not want to pay the cost of defending the matter, and settle with Josh price or terms more agreeable to Josh. And yes, Josh’s likelihood of favorable treatment in Montco courts is quite high. His lawyer brain sees a really good probability of a favorable outcome. But the property owner didn’t file a real estate claim in the state court. The property owner filed a rights action in federal court, where favoritism towards Josh is still possible but much less likely. And obviously the property owner is not afraid to spend what ever money it takes to defend their right to the property. Josh’s political brain now sees state troopers standing in front of a fence in every attack ad as he runs for reelection. Josh’s political brain will want to pay the property owner whatever price they ask to keep this from litigating through the election cycle. Stupid and costly mistake for an otherwise smart politician. Could be brutal either way.
There is no fence. Shapiro maintained that land for 23 years. Both neighbors thought that piece of land belonged to the Shapiros until the survey for the security fence that was never built found the property line designated for the fence was in the Mocks property.
It sounds like Professor Turley left out a few “minor” details. Let’s dive in, shall we?
First, “squatters”? Hardly. For over 20 years, both the Shapiros and the Mocks believed the disputed land belonged to the Shapiros. Since 2003, the Shapiros have maintained the land and even installed an invisible dog fence there. The issue only surfaced after an arson attack at the official governor’s mansion necessitated increased security at his private residence. A land survey for a proposed security fence revealed the actual property boundary for the first time in decades.
Second, Turley’s claim that an eight-foot fence was “built anyway” is categorically false. While materials were brought on-site, the discovery of the boundary issue halted construction. Instead, they opted to plant a tree line; no permanent fence was ever erected.
If there is a legitimate legal concern here, it’s the use of $1 million in state funds for security upgrades on a private residence—not a simple land dispute.
As for the litigation, the Mocks are being represented by a lawyer with deep ties to Republican lawmakers, which suggests this is more of a political maneuver than an honest neighborly misunderstanding. The Shapiros tried to resolve this by offering to buy the land legally, but it appears the Mocks were persuaded to sue instead. Under Pennsylvania law, the Shapiros’ claim of adverse possession is actually quite strong, as they’ve openly maintained the property for 23 years—surpassing the 21-year legal threshold.
It seems like you are doing just what you accuse the Prof of doing, glossing over inconvenient details. First, the Mock’s have paid taxes on the property, certainly an indication that they have not “abandoned” it or have not recognized it as theirs. Second, the fact that Shapiro has sought to buy or lease the property is an indication that both parties know the property belongs to the Mocks, that the Mocks have asserted their rights, and that Shapiro has recognized their rights —- until it became inconvenient for him to do so.
Paying taxes on a property they did not know was theirs is not an excuse. The adverse possession issue does not involve paying taxes.
“Second, the fact that Shapiro has sought to buy or lease the property is an indication that both parties know the property belongs to the Mocks, that the Mocks have asserted their rights, and that Shapiro has recognized their rights —- until it became inconvenient for him to do so.”
Nope. The only reason they sought to buy or lease the land is when they found out AFTER the survey for the security fence determined the actual property line. The Mocks believed the land in question belonged to the Shapiros for 23 years. The fact that the Shapiros tried to do the Mocks right by offering to buy the land shows they were willing to be fair. Turley is characterizing this as a Democrat intent on stealing land to rile up his conservative readers. You know, manufacturing rage.
The only reason why the Mocks are suing is because a lawyer with deep connections to Republicans is encouraging the Mocks to contest the land. Shapiro who is also a lawyer correctly chose to invoke a legal process to lay claim to the land. There was no squatting of the land. Both neighbors believed the land in question belonged to Shapiro for 23 years. Turley “neglected” to mention that particular fact for partisan reasons.
He is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, we are told that ‘for over 20 years’ everyone, including the Mocks, believed the strip belonged to the Shapiros. On the other hand, we are told the Shapiros ‘tried to resolve this by offering to buy the land legally.’ Those two claims do not line up. The Mocks did not even purchase their home until 2017, so they could not have spent 20 years believing anything about that boundary. And you do not offer to buy ‘legally’ what you already own. The far more straightforward reading is that once the 2025 survey made the deed and the tax bill impossible to ignore, the Shapiros tried to buy the strip and, when that failed, switched to adverse possession as a way to get it without paying the price the owners wanted.
Actually, the claims line up perfectly when you look at the timeline. It’s not ‘having it both ways’; it’s called discovering a mistake and trying to fix it.
First, the Shapiros maintained that land for 23 years (since 2003), long before the Mocks arrived in 2017. For seven years, the Mocks clearly accepted the existing boundary because they never once contested the Shapiros mowing ‘their’ lawn or using the land.
Second, of course you offer to buy land you thought you owned—once a survey proves you don’t. Offering to buy the strip was a neighborly attempt to avoid a lawsuit. When the Mocks (likely nudged by a politically connected lawyer) refused a fair sale, the Shapiros fell back on Adverse Possession, which is specifically designed for this exact scenario: when someone has openly cared for and treated land as their own for over 21 years.
It’s not a ‘switch’ in strategy; it’s a legal reality created by two decades of undisputed maintenance.
When I was growing up, I used to mow lawns, rake leaves, and shovel sidewalks for some of my elderly neighbors. I did it for free. By the logic I keep hearing here, maybe I should have filed a legal claim to their property too. At some point we have to admit there is a moral difference between being a good neighbor and turning years of “maintenance” into an excuse to take what the deed and the tax bill say belongs to someone else.
You are also smoothing over some pretty important distinctions. “23 years of maintenance” is the Shapiros’ claim, not a stipulated fact. The Mocks say Shapiro himself acknowledged in earlier documents that the strip was on their side of the line, and they have been paying the taxes on that parcel since they bought it. They also say they objected when he started planting and building once the security upgrades ramped up. That is not “seven years of happily accepting the boundary.” And the “of course you offer to buy land you thought you owned” line actually helps my point. The moment you offer to buy or lease it from the neighbor, you are conceding the legal reality you say does not matter: the deed and the tax map put it on their side. At that point, adverse possession is not some neutral default. It is a way to try to convert long‑term use into title after the record owner has refused to sell. If the law lets a powerful neighbor say, “I used it for a long time, I thought it was mine, you will not sell, so now I will ask a court to give it to me anyway,” it may be a clean doctrinal move, but it still sits uneasily with a system that claims to secure clear, recorded property rights for ordinary owners.
And one of the big tells that you are out of legal and factual runway is when you fall back on a theory of political motivation that is not actually in evidence. Maybe the Mocks’ lawyer has Republican friends and Turley has conservative readers, but none of that answers the basic questions about the deed, the survey, the tax bill, and the use of troopers on disputed land. If the only way to defend this is to insist it is all just “manufactured rage” and partisan puppeteering, that says a lot about how weak the underlying argument really is.
Olly, comparing a kid raring a neighbor’s leaves to a 23-year property maintenance case is comparing apples to oranges. A kid doing a favor isn’t claiming ownership; a homeowner who installs an invisible dog fence and manages a lawn for two decades is acting as the de facto owner. That is the literal definition of ‘open and notorious’ use in property law
Oh Xlax?!
So the piece in question is a piece of a larger tract. Shapiro has unknowingly to the Owner, encroached onto their property. Shapiro knew it wasn’t his, the Mocks and previous Owners have paid the property taxes on this land in perpetuity through out. Shapiro unsolicited, took it upon himself to provide maintenance activities on the property as well as approached the Mocks for purchase.
He will lose, not only for the fundamental Ownership issues but also for the misuse of his public office to support an illegal land taking for his own personal gain. This would set a very dangerous precedent for private property ownership.