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.”
“Sleep Creep” vs. Mission Creep”
Gardeners know all about “Sleep Creep,” –the silent spread of plant and shrub growth without assistance, or sometimes even knowledge, of property owners. On the bright side, creeping myrtle or creeping phlox. On the downside, think crabgrass.
In the early years, these plants “sleep,” putting most energy into developing a strong root system and a slow, steady growth pattern. Then they “creep”, continuing to develop root systems and further spreading by rooting where their stems touch the ground. https://greenyplace.com/what-is-a-sleep-creep
Judging by the way Shapiro has allegedly planted shrubs and other greenery in the disputed strip of real property,
he may be deemed a microcosmic poster child for Mission Creep, i.e., a political ideology striving for dominance via silent, subsurface spread through academia, media, corporate and political America.
He is not a fiery Jasmine Crockett or combative Chris Murphy. He operates in a slow, steady, polite, but tactical/methodical pattern.
Beware of sleep creep.
Well said, Lin. Is there a storm water drainage problem. You referenced such? Something is missing in this recount of circumstances or shapiro is just a creepy guy.
The fence had to be straight? Why not cut of part of your land for it and gift the land to the Mocks? More to this story?
I hope Shapiro is successful and sets a precedent, as there are a few parcels I would like to take with the use of his Theory of Law.
Yummy!
Not my text, soucred from several sites:
Yes, a Pennsylvania government official can take land away from a citizen under the power of eminent domain, but only under strict constitutional and statutory conditions.
Eminent Domain: The government may take private property for a public use (such as roads, schools, or public utilities) and must provide just compensation to the owner. This right is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Pennsylvania’s Restrictions: The Pennsylvania Property Rights Protection Act limits the government’s ability to seize land for private development. It prohibits taking property for the benefit of a private enterprise unless it’s a common carrier, utility, or part of a larger public project.
The government must follow specific legal procedures, including offering fair market value and allowing the owner to challenge the taking in court.
A property owner can contest whether the taking is truly for public use or challenge the amount of compensation offered, though proving a taking is not for public use is extremely difficult.
Important Note: While the government can legally take land, it cannot do so arbitrarily. The process is subject to legal scrutiny, and property owners have the right to fight the taking in court—primarily over compensation or procedural fairness.
Adverse Possession: A private individual cannot take your land simply by occupying it. To claim ownership through adverse possession in Pennsylvania, someone must occupy the land openly, continuously, and exclusively for 21 years, which is rare and difficult to achieve.
This is NOT a government action. This is a private taking by a political figure using public resources to support his illegal trespass. I would believe looking at the survey the wall could easily be installed on his owned property. This is an abuse of power and I believe will be a losing battle for Shapiro, both politically and personally. A deed is a deed…
If the Mocks have denied access to Shapiro for ONE day, then the adverse possession is nullified and must start count from
ZERO days!
Agreed. Dipsh*t may have very well did all this because when the survey lot line were revealed dipsh*t like the fact that the wall would be to close to his extended patio. Just a thought.
Jonathan has a good point. Gov. Shapiro faces the risk of unfavorable verdict from two juries. One in court, one at the ballot box. Politically, he better be thinking about the election of remedies doctrine. In court some remedies are mutually inconsistent with each other. For example, damages for the entire value of property wrongfully in the hands of the defendant, versus return of the property to rightful possession plus incidental make whole damages. If the verdict supports a judgement for either, plaintiff must elect which becomes the court’s judgement. Outside of court, in the voting booth, voters are not constrained by the niceties of court procedure. They decide the election remedy on optics.
Mike Gilmore:
Nice post.
But, outside of the good professor, what MEDIA sources will publish anything about this story with the damaging and/or suggestively-damaging headlines used against conservatives/Republicans/Trump?
What if Jared and Ivanka Kushner had done the same thing?
Mike and Lin, exactly. That is why I keep dragging this back to first principles instead of jerseys. If a governor can use adverse possession and state troopers to squeeze a neighbor off clearly deeded, tax‑paying land, it should bother us no matter what letter is after his name. The fact that we can all instantly imagine the headlines if Jared and Ivanka had tried this tells you the media angle. My worry is the deeper one: a legal and political culture that treats slow encroachment by the powerful as normal, and then talks about ‘rule of law’ as if it still means the organized defense of everyone’s rights.
When you say “it should bother us” you’re introducing a third court, the state legislature in the form of impeachment. Sending state troopers to your neighbor’s property is an abuse of governmental authority. A legislative committee needs to investigate the state police to understand who gave the order and someone in the chain of command needs to take responsibility.
Creekan, I agree that once you are using state troopers to muscle your neighbor off disputed ground, we are past a private boundary fight and into abuse‑of‑office territory. If the governor can deploy police power to backstop his own adverse‑possession claim, that should bother us whether or not he can thread the 21‑year needle in court. At that point there really are two tracks. The courts can sort out who holds title. But the legislature has to ask the separate question you raise: who ordered troopers onto land the tax rolls say is not the governor’s, and how does that square with their duty to protect, not pressure, the people they police?
There’s a pattern of certain people’s taking land that isn’t theirs… I’ll let you draw the connections, but some religions believe they are superior and all others are just chattel under their feet.
Well here he is, the today’s go to bigot, in full view. Spew anti-Jewish hate much Mitch?
Maybe he was referring to Islam
It ain’t the 19th century anymore. I’ve been clearing and maintaining a section of my neighbor’s back property that backs up to mine for years. That doesn’t make it mine. My tending to it follows the principle of “who cares most.”
“for years. That doesn’t make it mine.” Yes it does, it could, but check the town/city ordinances.
The keyword “who cares …” Obviously you don’t want it, but your attitude is indicative of the case at hand.
Nice guy anyway. Got time on your hands, got 50 acres of brush. Interested?
Wrong as usual
Maintaining someone else’s property unsolicited is trespass.
There is no local ordinance that can supersede State and Federal property rights.
The property would have to be acquired through an abandonment and picked up on the courthouse at a back taxes sale. Even then, the Owner being the Titled deed holder and Owner has a limited window to respond and pay all debts before a legal loss of the land through abandonment.
This is a touchy area of the law, but if the owners of the land sent Josh Shapiro a check for ten-dollars and a letter thanking him for mowing the lawn, adverse possession could never have been considered.
There is a lawful way to get access, not ownership through someone else’s property through easement by prescription. That would allow a neighbor to traverse someone else’s property. It is mutually agreeable and has a time frame requirement.
It would still not give them ownership or allow them to make real improvements to the property. Shapiro is trying to steal these people’s land for his personal gain. If he’s using the government resources to aide him he could be in serious trouble. I mean it would be like a Governor using the State Police to aide him in sexual abuse of a secretary or something 🙄 (Bubba).
In light of this, Shapiro’s national aspirations are probably kaput. Good riddance. Using the force of the state looks like a deprivation of civil rights under color of law federal crime. He needs to go to prison. And lose his house.
Looks to me like Greater Israel in microcosm. Only in this case it seems that the targets were not bad actors like Hamas. Tiny hat aggression, tiny hat logic. Unacceptable.
You’re saying land has a civil right?
Nothing like infusing your anti-Jewish bias into the story.
You are ridiculous. The neighbors whose land was stolen had their civil rights violated.
Most of my life I was very neutral on Israel but generally accepted the synthetic narrative that they were the victims in every situation and deserved US support. The last decade has shown me that I was gravely mistaken in my laziness.
And what does a Jewish PA Gov. have to do with Israel? Maybe stolen land? Um, smells like Gaza eh? Think the Palestinians have civil rights? No response required, you’d only embarrass yourself. Again.
A kosher monitor. Bagels please.
and
If the Foo shits, wear it.
Oldfish, While Shapiro’s attempt to claim land that is not his to claim, your attempt to compare this wrongdoing with what is going on between Israel and the Palistinians shows an ignorance of history and – in logic – is called a “false analogy.”
I’ll admit that it is a weakish analogy, but its basis is in entitlement. The other factor may be coincidental.
Do you have any idea what the word entitlement means when it comes to what constitutes a state and the legal definition of borders? Apparently not. You keep talking but provide no concrete facts.
Israel is the legitimate sovereign over Israel Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Jerusalem.
Since 1948 a false taking.
Yes, Arabs tried to usurp Jewish land.
Don’t you know anything about the British Mandate? History?
Nothing like a Fascist Democrat acting like a Fascist. Sort of puts the lie to Democrat squawking how they fight against Fascism, when they act like Fascists every chance they get. Sieg heil, Shapiro!
Nothing like a deranged anti-fascist calling Jews fascists.
“Sieg heil, Shapiro!”
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
Let me see, what is the premise here? Ah, a self-entitled politician uses the violent and coercive power of The State to forcibly remove the legitimate owners from land that he covets. How can this be portrayed as surprising? How is this not a fully representative example of the way that politicians of all stripes think and behave? The only novel element here is that Shapiro was either too stupid or too unlucky for this abuse to fly under the radar until both his political and avaricious ambitions were fully realized.
But Shapiro argues that he needs a security zone, even before he became governor.
As for calling Shapiro stupid, that’s interesting coming from a nobody anon commenter.
“As for calling Shapiro stupid, that’s interesting coming from a nobody anon commenter.”
Stupid is as stupid does. And appending a generic pseudonym (gee, I’d bet there aren’t many more than 12 million or so “Ed K”s in the US) magically transforms you into a “somebody”? Frankly, you remain the same pathetic j@ck@$$ no matter what label you choose to comment under…
In 2019 Governor Shapiro famously said that if President Trump spends $1 of Pennsylvania money on the border wall, he will sue to stop him. It seems that pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats gets easier by the day. And then there is the easy humor they give us. Representative Crockett’s body guard was charged with impersonating a police officer when she should have been charged with impersonating a member of Congress. Unfortunately, there is nothing funny about the Democrats headlong plunge into the abyss of socialism and their rejection of American patriotism and fundamental values, without this great country cannot exist.
Um… “In 2019 Governor Shapiro famously said that if President Trump spends $1 of Pennsylvania money on the border wall,…”
Those ex-lawyers here have minds like s steel trap…. Turley stated that in his opinion. Read it.
And then we’re told that J. Crokett’s b/g is etc… ? What does that have to do with the Mocks?
HON
The body guard issue something else. Sure reflects on her.
Reflects what exactly? Is she a mirror?
More like Countess Blackula…queen of the damned.
The more that is known about Josh the more his national ambitions will sink. His big play and claim to fame in Pa is legalizing pot despite what the Heart and Lung associations say about the substance. He doesn’t care what the psych and emergency room stats say. He only wants the tax dollars and the votes of pot smokers.
With Josh there is not a lot of There, there. But Pa has a long record of electing mediocrities. This is probably due to the pervasive leave me alone attitude in Pa. The idiots are able to sneak through and stay in office for years. But the media is never going to give him the fawning national coverage they give to other do-nothing politicians. This story and others will get a lot more coverage if he challenges Kammy or one of the other sacred cows of the Dem party. I bet he doesn’t run. He’s not very bright; but he knows the score.
Those idiots you speak of are partisans. Living breathing people with a singular idea… democracy.
In theory this government is “owned” by the people. The Constitution is the original deed. By consent we created an agent whose whole point is to secure our preexisting rights to life, liberty, and property. But in practice many politicians treat that charter the way an adverse possessor treats a neighbor’s side yard.
If the people are quiet, distracted, or “passive” for long enough, they behave as if effective ownership has shifted. Precedent piles up, power expands, and before long what was supposed to be our instrument starts acting like it has an independent claim to rule.
On that picture, the problem is not that citizens signed away their sovereignty, any more than the Mocks signed away their strip of land. The problem is that officials act as if passivity equals consent and inattention equals abandonment. That is exactly backwards from the Founders’ logic, where the social contract remains valid only so long as government continues to act as trustee for rights it did not create in the first place.
When rulers treat the Constitution as something they can “occupy” by practice rather than obey in principle, they are engaging in a kind of constitutional adverse possession, and we are watching our legitimate ownership of the regime itself slowly erode.
Where the heck did you come up with this nonsense? Reads like psychobabble.
Olly – very astute. Thanks for that.
Old Man, thank you for saying that. These threads almost always get dragged toward personal shots and team jerseys, and I am always trying to pull the conversation back to first principles instead. We do not have to agree on every application, but it seems to me we ought to at least be able to talk seriously about what rights are, who they belong to, and what it means for government to secure them instead of slowly taking them over. You clearly got that, and I appreciate it. If someone wants to call that “psychobabble,” I am fine with that as long as they are willing to actually engage the reasoning you saw there.
Been waiting long for someone to respond eh Olly? What first principles you say? That is not a legal theory its a SOP, assuming parties agree to certain assumptions. In today’s case, PA law. Which you fail to acknowledge, preferring to launch into some cosmic diatribe about rulers.
As for old man, “the reasoning you saw there”? He made no mention of what he saw. You have got to stop whining every time someone criticizes you. Its unseemly.
Old Man, I keep coming back to Bastiat’s question, ‘What is law?’ Is it the organized defense of our rights, or a clever tool that lets the stronger party get what he could not get by honest purchase? In a case like this, where a doctrine helps turn long‑term encroachment into a legal title, it starts to feel a lot closer to legalized plunder than protection of life, liberty, and property. I’d be interested in your thoughts on Bastiat’s question and answer in light of this Shapiro dispute.”
This is the good part from the complaint:
“26. Moreover, the State Police have repeatedly told the Mocks that the area
is now a “security zone” that they may not enter onto without permission of the
Shapiros and/or the State Police. “
“. . . the Mocks that the area is now a ‘security zone’ . . .”
So much for the Left’s slogan: “No Kings.”
So, using your logic there shouldn’t be a fence around the White House?
Considering the violence that’s going g on in this country I’d think you’d cut the governor so slack.
So using Wally’s logic, there should be no fences allowed in the USA. BTW, just kidding, your comment is without sense or logic.
Wally said “Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa” like the good Democrat ruminant that he is.
Girls, girls, girls, stop the bickering.
Wally.
The White House is the peoples house. Have you seen any pictures of it lately?
Just a tad bit of difference.
No it is not. The WH is a federally protected government property. And btw, with an existing demarcation line …. fences and guards.
People’s house? The White House is owned by the federal government and is stewarded by federal agencies, including the NPS, which is responsible for its care and maintenance. Also, the White House is expressly exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act, meaning it is not legally protected from demolition or major alteration under federal preservation laws.
“So, using your logic . . .”
You seem to have missed the part about Shapiro *confiscating* a citizen’s private property, then rationalizing the theft as a “security zone” so that he could have a fence — you know, like kings do.
P.S. Do you not know how to craft a proper analogy? Or did you intentionally misrepresent my point?
BTW, if you actually read the story you’ll notice that Shapiro has been after the Mocks’ property since long before he became governor. Over the years, he was told “no, no, and no.” Now, as a petulant, spoiled governor, he decided: Fine. I’ll just seize your property — you know: Like kings do.
Complaint: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/josh-shapiro-neighbor-property-annexed-using-state-police-complaint.pdf
Shapiro WAS a democrat this Republican could have voted for. This incident puts that completely out of my mind. Are ALL democrats just power hungry monsters or only the politicianz?
@Anonymous
Now you’re getting it. If you thought he was electable, he lied. There is no variation in DNC policy in 2026; they are ALL unelectable, and all disingenuous. Whatever you see the most radical contingent of the modern left doing or implementing either here or even overseas, is what all of them will do or implement; the dems are no longer an American, Constitutional party.
The win goes to Josh Shapiro. Because we all know judges are partisan; especially withy a gov. and state police breathing down their neck.
It would seem that if the Mock’s had been paying taxes on the area for 9 years and the parcel of land being taxed was correctly surveyed and on record then they had not “abandoned” their land especially since they also lived there and were contesting the colonization of their land. I guess it’s going to come down to who has the best records, state law and other documentation.
Too many other unknowns. I suppose the Mocks won’t be voting for Mr Shapiro anytime soon.
These little property fights can get really nasty and bring out some unpleasant characteristics of you and your neighbors.
One of the Mocks should run against shapiro to show the public the kinda guy he really is.
GEB, you make a terrific argument! We have a very similar “adverse possession” doctrine in New York State that has resulted in some crazy case law. A good result here would be a loss for the opportunistic governor and losses in future elections.
Shapiro seems to have another legal issue, along with the review of a case he handled when DA in Philadelphia. Refer to the case, which the family involved finally was able to have someone look at the case again. This case is much bigger than the land dispute.
Bigger? How so?
“The fact is that there are credible arguments on both sides of this dispute.”
Sorry Professor, I see no “credible argument” on Shapiro’s side.
And you’re no PA licensed lawyer.
Are you? Big mouth
Oh oh, the local idiot has arrived.
Do you knew States & cities have their laws. (RCW) Even a fool like you can look them up.
What does that mean Dustoff? I don’t have a dictionary for stupid speak.
UR Insincere. Admit it, you don’t even own a dictionary.
Thanks Ano.
You just proved my point. Are you a lawyer? Do you know states & city laws. Yes you can look them up.
Wait, you made a point? Seems you missed it too. BTW, cities use ordinances.
Again with the grammar? Are you a Grammar Nazi?
You come here with no point to make except prove you are stupid.
Impressive piece of intelligent argumentation Dustoff. Got more?
So are you a lawyer? Or just another smart azz, who just hates what anyone says, right or wrong.
Commoner myself, dust.
Some of us are licensed to practice law in states that have embraced the “adverse possession” doctrine. If you are not, please do not discount Wiseoldlawer’s opinion so readily!
See? At your age its no wonder. Did you read both complaints? Turley did.
As for credibility, your so called lawyerly skills have failed you. Its not about credible legal arguments, it the process that’s the issue. The powerful PA Gov. vs. common citizens. Its not about the law, its about power. And the court will come down on the side of the Gov. And he’ll get it for pennies.
Agree, WOL, Hammurabi seriously. Bring it forward to John Locke and the common land. A parcel can be taken from the commons and ownership is by the work done if enough land is left in common. The Mocks have a deed. It is not common land.
I’d like to hear the good argument from Shapiro referenced by PT. Yes, fences make good neighbors but fence sitters not so much. Maybe the insects and wild brush really own it. 😏.
By Shapiro’s argument his gardener owns the land. Shapiro was the the gardener, volunteer.
Well, Shapiro turns out to be a thief. Neighbors will do that with their envious eyes.
Companies and corporations and people do abandon property and buildings leaving hideous eyesores of rust, decay and broken windows. Shapiro might claim some of that debris? Give it back to the commons, wildlife. Should be an eyesore law.
A great study of contrast, it seems that Shapiro is more fully embedded into the Democratic Party thinking than he realized. That is, to regard the Law as a matter of choice. Obey when convenient; reject when desired. This attitude apparently applies to their public and now even their private business. Not good for Josh, by gosh.
In fact Shapiro is the model for the dreaded neighbor from hell. What he’s doing is typical neighbor behavior, in the sense of simple proximity; not as a social being.
Lived next door to a politician/city councilor once. He was a f-ing nightmare, his meddling knew no bounds. He made life hell.
As for Shapiro, one hopes he gets his comeuppance now that its political.
PJMedia: Shapiro’s team dismisses the lawsuit as a political stunt, pointing to ties between the Mocks’ lawyer and Republican state senators. The dispute has already entered the political arena, with Shapiro’s re-election opponent, Stacy Garrity, mocking him in campaign ads. With dueling lawsuits ongoing, the outcome could impact Shapiro’s reputation and potential 2028 presidential ambitions.