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.”
Yet another MAGA distraction–1. ignore the deaths of 6 more patriotic Americans who are dead because of ? Was there a mid-air collision between two refueling planes? If so–why? Inadequate training, misdirection, human error or enemy fire? There hasn’t been a consistent or coherent reason expressed for starting this war. Senator Kelly has counted 11 different reasons given. Then there’s: a. timing–the contemporaneous release of the portions of the Epstein file that describe allegations of Trump sexually assaulting a young teenage girl, which Pammie Jo was forced to release after claiming some of these documents were mis-marked as “duplicates”; to pay back UAE for purchasing $2 B of worthless Trump cryptocurrency; to pay back Saudi Arabia for bailing out Jared Kushner’s real estate to the tune of $2 B; to pay back Qatar for the free luxury flying palace. UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are rivals of Iran. Now, Kushner is trying to get the Saudis to invest $5 B in some new business venture of his; 2. find something, anything, with which to criticize a Democrat, especially a rising star like Josh Shapiro. Turley’s little piece assumes Shapiro is wrong. That’s absolutely not clear. Shapiro claims that the Mocks didn’t even realize that the property could have been included in their parcel until he wanted to build a fence on it–but being neutral is not what Turley is paid to do. This case is not worthy of national attention except as a MAGA hit piece; 3. ignore the endless lying, Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the fact that America bombed the Iranian school because of outdated intelligence; first he said Iran did it themselves, but when proof of a Tomahawk missile came to light and he was confronted with proof that Iran never had Tomahawks, claimed he didn’t know anything about it; 4. ignore the implications of the comment of wife-beating Whiskey Pete, who can’t wait until Trump crony Ellison takes over CNN and Trump can control the content of what they broadcast. Whiskey Pete was upset when CNN reported that the US military didn’t think through the implications of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz and what that would do to the price of petroleum. If they thought it through, why weren’t they prepared for this? Demanding that tankers and cargo ships “show some guts” isn’t the answer. Insurance carriers and owners of the fleets of these vessels won’t allow them to proceed. Why should they lose their crews and their ships because of Trump’s bluster? The administration also lied when it said that the US Navy had escorted a tanker through the Strait. We never have and aren’t prepared to do so now. 5. the fact that since there are not stated “goals”, there can be no way to measure progress or success. Trump is already taking a victory lap, claiming “success” long before this war is over. When have we seen this before? Hummmmm.
Yeah, the big political story is a private property dispute between Josh Shapiro and some neighbors–only in MAGA verse.
Gigi is off her meds.
Cry harder Gigi, we can’t hear you.
@Anonymous
Get back on your meds, Gigi. We all know who you are and what you are doing. For new readers, she has been trolling this blog for years.
she has been trolling this blog for years.
With 10,000-word diatribes in which every other word is MAGA. You can always tell its her by the number of “MAGAs”. That and the blue icon, are how I know it’s tl;dr.
43,000 Americans die every year on highways, but they don’t count, right, Nutchachacha?
If you are 30 years old, that would be 1,290,000 killed in your lifetime.
What are they, chopped liver (with all due respect)?
Something that confuses me is that when property changes hands, there is a survey done to verify the property lines and the new owner buys a Title Insurance policy to indemnify them if there is a problem with the title, which would include survey mistakes. When the Mocks purchased the property, a survey should have been done at that time and that survey is the datum for all future questions regarding property ownership. If the Shapiros assert that they have adverse ownership of the land, then in 2017 when that survey was completed, they could have contested the property line at that time, but, they didn’t.
The key words, “should have been done” is the problem. Not all land transactions have surveys done. The previous owners had no idea either the land in dispute was not Shapiro’s. So nobody questioned it for just over two decades. Only after a survey for the security fence was conducted did the discrepancy emerge.
This has nothing to do with Turley’s insinuation that the governors is intentionally stealing the land by ‘squatting’ on it. Not even close.
Your only ability to score points is by making things up. The professor’s article never comes close to “insinuating the governor is intentionally stealing the land by squatting on it.” The article has a few points: the optics are bad for a politician with larger aspirations, there is irony in this situation because of Shapiro’s remarks against building a wall at the southern bordern, there is a fascinating element here (Turley’s words) regarding the use of state troopers, and this all arises in a broader context while there has been a squatting problem elsewhere.
Suggesting that the professor is insinuating the “stealing” of property is to misunderstand the entire concept of adverse possession, which is a way of gaining property within the bounds of the law. The professor never once says that the Shapiros are sure to lose in court, or that if they lose they will steal the land regardless of the court’s ruling.
Old man: look at the title of today’s piece–it says that Shapiro “claims NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY”. If Shapiro took it by adverse possession according to Pennsylvania law, it’s not the “neighbor’s property’–it’s Shapiro’s property and the lawsuit seeks to quiet title for Shapiro if he can meet all of the criteria for adverse possession. According to “Legal Clarity Pennsylvania”, those requirements are: “The possession must be actual, continuous, exclusive, distinct, visible and notorious, and hostile. All six conditions must be met simultaneously for a legally defined period. For most properties, this period is 21 years.” Supposedly, the Mocks didn’t even realize that the disputed property could be theirs until Shapiro wanted to erect a fence, which is when they put up a fuss.
Turley also says that “Shapiros planted (arborvitae) on the Mock Property without permission and over the Mocks’ express objections.” Agan, Turley declares that it’s the “Mock Property”. Turley also says “few people are likely to be sympathetic with the Shapiros taking property from a neighbor.” Also Turley accuses Shapiro of: “taking his neighbor’s property without compensation.”
The point of the lawsuit is that ownership of the property is disputed. Shapiro claims to be able to meet the requirements for adverse possession. Turley definitely took sides and points out that Shapiro is up for reelection. This is a hit piece.
Headline: “Person A claims Person B’s property through adverse possession” – has nothing to do with stealing, has everything to do with adverse possession.
Stealing: is a crime, has nothing to do with adverse possession.
There is a lawsuit where the court will decide who has title: has nothing to do with stealing, everything to do with adverse possession.
Claiming title through adverse possession by erecting a fence: has nothing to do with stealing, everything to do with adverse possession.
Hint: people who steal don’t rely on a 21-year statutory period of physical possession. They don’t rely on a statute at all.
Oldmanfromkansas, You’re 100% right: calling this ‘stealing’ is a catchy headline for people who don’t understand property law, but it’s legally illiterate.
The reason people use the word ‘stealing’ here is to manufacture a moral outrage that doesn’t exist under the Pennsylvania statute. If you maintain land for 23 years, the law literally rewards that stewardship.
Stealing is a ‘hit and run’; adverse possession is a ‘stay and pay’ (in terms of decades of maintenance).
The Fence: As we’ve established, the 8-foot fence was never even built. The Shapiros stopped the moment the boundary was questioned—hardly the move of someone ‘stealing’ through force.
The 21-Year Clock: If the Mocks’ predecessors didn’t care about the land for 14 years, and the Mocks didn’t notice for 7 more, the law says the Shapiros’ right to the title has already vested.
The Court’s Role: A quiet title action isn’t a criminal trial for theft; it’s a administrative correction of a 20-year-old mistake.
The only people calling this ‘theft’ are the ones who want to turn a standard real estate technicality into a campaign ad. If it were anyone other than a sitting Governor, this would be a boring civil case settled in a week. Instead, it’s being dressed up as a crime because the law—the actual, written law—doesn’t support the ‘victim’ narrative.
X – You’re saying I’m right and the Blue Anonymous (Gigi) is wrong. I agree with what you said.
If it were anyone other than a sitting Governor, this would be a boring civil case settled in a week.
I’m not sure about settled in a week, but you’re right in saying that the public would find it of little interest. Professor Turley wrote the article, in part, to make political points, as well as point out the legal nuance about the use of state troopers. As I said before, Turley pointed out it’s bad optics for Shapiro (a political observation), it’s ironic on Shapiro’s part after opposing a wall to guard the national border (another political observation), and the unusual element here the use of the troopers (a legal point).
Where you erred was in saying that Turley had somehow implied that Shapiro was trying to “steal” the land (your words). Turley never implied that.
My interpretation of the 21 year timeframe is that if it were to apply, it would commence with the Mock’s purchase of the land, not another Owner. Unless it was a cash sale or Owner financed the lender would require a survey and title search. An ALTA survey would give explicit boundary lines and coordinates that would make all parties aware of any encroachments. If it were missed, the surveyor would be liable for errors and omissions. From the article it sounds like this was where it became an issue with the Owner’s (Mock). Once the adverse possession attempt track is thwarted, it appears this is simply a property line dispute that will be settled in court with the survey. I think Shapiro is trying the end run, I don’t believe it will work.
Oldmanfromkansas,
Really? When Turley calls the governor of Pennsylvania a ‘squatter’ it pretty much insinuates he’s taking land illegally from someone else.
The optics are bad because Turley is the one creating the optics. He falsely claimed the fence was put up, it was never built. Fun fact: Trump never finished building his big beautiful wall.
Being a governor and having state troopers provide security AFTER the official Governor’s mansion was attacked by an arsonist pretty much justifies the use of state troopers to provide security for his private property.
The professor loves to insinuate rather than directly address all the facts. He never mentioned the fact that nobody knew where the actual property lines were for over twenty years. Shapiro used a legally valid way to obtain the property AFTER offering to buy and the Mocks refused. He used what was on the books and Mocks could have made some money. Now they may be stuck with lawyer fees and the loss of the land to the governor all completely within the law.
When Turley calls the governor of Pennsylvania a ‘squatter’
You really do have a serious reading problem. Turley never called Shapiro a squatter, nor does he insinuate it. He described a lawsuit, and the allegations made in that lawsuit, which are bound to be one-sided from both plaintiff and defendant. Thus, he said that someone else, in the context of a lawsuit, alleged that Shapiro was squatting. Professor Turley is an experienced lawyer, and like any experienced lawyer, is careful about what he says, making sure to describe things accurately. You, on the other hand, are fast and loose with the facts. My point remains: you can only sore points by making things up.
Oldmanfromkansas, you’ve never heard of a rhetorical flourish?
Careful of what he says? He falsely claimed Shapiro put up an 8 foot security fence. He’s obviously insinuating a lot in his column. How would you explain commenters thinking Governor Shapiro stole the land? If he’s careful as a lawyer should. He “forgot” to mention neither the neighbor or Shapiro knew where the actual property boundary was. They BOTH assumed things were ok until the survey for the unbuilt security fence.
Where I live, surveys are recorded and surveyors place markers which might move over time or not, but a survey isn’t required upon each property sale. Yes, there is title insurance.
“when property changes hands, there is a survey done to verify the property lines and the new owner buys a Title Insurance policy to indemnify them ”
Not necessarily true. That all depends entirely on regulations and common practice in the jurisdiction where the property transfer takes place.
My focus is on the use of the police to exclude the Mocks from this (I should say their land but ownership is now legally disputed) land. Were the Shapiros also excluded? If not why not? The police are state actors. If the state occupied the land, how can the Shapiros claim exclusive use? If state actors took the land, did the state follow eminent domain law and offer fair compensation? I have a lot more questions, but from what I read, the Shapiros and the State Police, as Ricky Ricardo might say, have a lot of splainin to do.
The Mocks probably prevail. Under Pennsylvania law, adverse possession requires actual, continuous, exclusive, open, notorious, distinct, and hostile possession for 21 years. Shapiro’s claim is vulnerable because evidence that he offered to buy or lease the land may constitute an acknowledgment of the Mocks’ ownership, undermining the required hostility. In addition, if the Mocks objected or attempted to assert control within the 21-year period, the statutory clock would reset and defeat the claim. Their payment of property taxes and allegations that state troopers prevented them from accessing their land further weaken the argument that the property was abandoned or uncontested. Shapiro’s strongest argument is long-term maintenance of the parcel, but if the Mocks establish acknowledgment or interruption, the adverse possession claim fails.
Summary:
Adverse possession succeeds only when the owner truly sleeps on their rights for 21 uninterrupted years. If the Mocks can show they never abandoned the property and that Shapiro recognized their ownership or interrupted the period, the law will almost certainly leave the land where title already places it—with the Mocks.
Political Component:
Beyond the legal merits lies the political dimension. As a sitting governor and potential national candidate, Shapiro faces the reality that litigation does not occur in a vacuum. A case framed as a powerful officeholder taking a neighbor’s property—particularly with alleged involvement of state police—can influence public perception and, indirectly, a jury pool drawn from that same public. While courts instruct jurors to apply the law faithfully, history shows that juries sometimes exercise jury nullification, refusing to enforce a legal claim they perceive as unjust. Thus, even if the technical elements of adverse possession were arguably satisfied, the political context and the optics of the dispute could make prevailing before a jury considerably more difficult.
Nope, the Shapiro’s tended the land for 23 years, way past the 21 year cut-off. The Shapiro’s have the better case against the Mock’s claims. Keep in mind, neither party knew there was an issue with property boundaries until the Shapiros decided to put in a security fence requiring a survey of the property boundaries. It was only then that the boundary discrepancy was found.
Mock’s paid taxes every year, that is not abandoned property. Mock could be using it as a private wildlife sanctuary, it’s not Shapiro’s business how they use it.
Anonymous, coulda, shoulda, woulda, is not an argument.
The property was not abandoned. It was being maintained by the Shapiros for over 20 years. The Mocks honestly believed the property belonged to the Shapiros until the survey for the security fence discovered the discrepancy.
Both Shapiro and the Mocks believed the property in dispute belonged to Shapiro for nearly two decades.
X –
You just can’t help but be wrong. Please continue posting.
If I were arguing this, I’d want to be on the Mocks side. Courts regularly hold that a sliver of land between properties is not enough for adverse possession. Also, attempts to purchase prior to the filing of an adverse possession claim could negate it all (I’m not taking the time to research PA law, but in my state it is enough).
Shapiro just should’ve ponied up whatever amount the Mocks wanted. This is a bad bad political look.
Anonymous, nope, you’re still wrong and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Have you figured out why state taxes are not pass throughs yet?
Jonathan – I haven’t reviewed the pleadings other than what you quoted but the “mowed the grass” quote leads me to believe that the doctrine at issue is “Consentable Lines” rather than Adverse Possession (they’re related but conceptually distinct in Pennsylvania). Consentable Lines doesn’t require many of the elements of Adverse Possession – just that adjoining landowners respected the same boundary between properties for a period of 21 years. FWIW, it is rather outrageous for someone to erect a fence on disputed property before the Court enters a decree recognizing that ownership of the property has passed by operation of law.
The doctrine of consentable lines could be relevant because, if both neighbors mutually treated the same boundary as the true line for 21 years, a court may recognize that line regardless of strict adverse-possession elements—though erecting a fence on disputed land before a court decree confirming ownership is often viewed as improper and potentially prejudicial.
There’s only one just solution here, return the disputed property to its original owners: the Shawnee, Iroquois and Lenape Native American tribes of Pennsylvania.
Is that you, Billie Eilish?
the tribes should intervene!
I love this idea. You win the comments board good sir!
The “People of the South” are the Shawnee, and there are the Iroquois and Lenape.
These people do not refer to themselves as native Americans.
They are Asiatic nomads native to Asia.
They have no desire to be “American,” as they are proudly Shawnee, Iroquois, and Lenape People.
They are in no way possibly Americans, as they were here long before 1789, the date America was created and established.
Your communist propaganda, posted here solely for the purposes of indoctrination, is nothing more than Buffalo S—!
You are a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
If you’ve paid property taxes regularly, which includes that bit of land, and aren’t in default on your taxes, then you haven’t abandoned that property.
It has nothing to do with property taxes. Not a dang thing. Adverse possession law does not say anything about property tax bills as a consideration.
Only that the land was taken care of and the neighbors never disputed the land for over 21 years.
Nobody knew the land Shapiro was taking care of was not his. It was not abandoned.
Sort of like Trump trying to annex Greenland and make Canada the 51st state?
More TDS from Green Anonymous. Take a chill pill, dude, Trump has never tried to annex Greenland or make Canada the 51st state. Nor has he tried to unalaterally amend the 14th Amendment. Sheeh!
“Welcome to the world of adverse possession. It is a doctrine dating back to 2000 B.C.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Another practice dating back to 508 B.C. is restricted-vote “democracy,” which America needs and which was intended by its Founders.
AI Overview
Democracy in Ancient Greece, specifically in Athens, began around 508–507 BC. Led by the aristocratic reformer Cleisthenes, this new political system—demokratia—shifted power away from elite families to the citizen body (adult male Athenians), establishing a form of direct democracy.
Core Voting Restrictions
– Gender: Women were categorically excluded from all political processes. They were not considered citizens and had no right to vote or participate in the Assembly.
– Age: Only adult males could participate. While requirements varied by era, men typically had to be at least 18 to 20 years old to vote in the Assembly and often 30 to serve as a juror or official.
– Citizenship & Heritage: One had to be a free-born Athenian citizen. Under later reforms by Pericles (451 B.C.), this was tightened so that a man could only be a citizen if both of his parents were Athenian.
– Legal Status: Enslaved people and freed slaves had no political rights.
– Residency (Metics): Foreign residents, known as metics, were excluded even if they lived in Athens for generations and paid taxes.
– Military Service: Men typically had to complete their military training (as ephebes) before being granted full voting rights.
– Property Qualifications: In the earliest stages, voting was often limited to wealthy landowners. However, reforms by leaders like Solon and Cleisthenes eventually extended the vote to all free male citizens, regardless of wealth.
– Physical Presence: Athens practiced direct democracy, meaning voters had to be physically present at the Assembly (the Pnyx) to cast a vote. This effectively restricted the vote of poor farmers living far from the city who could not afford the travel time.
– Atimia (Loss of Rights): Citizens could have their voting rights suspended for various reasons, most commonly for failing to pay debts to the city.
Big picture:
At the end of the day, Shapiro will follow and respect the rulings of the Judicial Branch courts. Unlike Trump and many of his Executive Branch officials. Shapiro is loyal to his sacred oath of office, most Trump agency heads are highly disloyal to their oath of office.
One Trump official Tom Homan is quoted in 2025 saying “I don’t care what judges think”. Put another way, Holman doesn’t understand his constitutional oath of office or views his promise to GOD to follow the U.S. Constitution as meaningless.
Both Trump and Shapiro made a promise to GOD to follow the rulings of judges (along with the rest of the U.S. Constitution). Shapiro will respect rulings by judges, Trump officials bypass judges’ Article 3 authority on a routine basis.
Here’s a fact of life: politicians and lawyers try to find legal-loopholes to get around laws that get in their way. This has been happening for 2000 years. What is not cool is being DISLOYAL to your oath of office!
Having said that, this story is a great distraction from the Epstein files;). Talking about fences instead of Epstein.
I see that you are an expert on the future conduct of Josh Shapiro too.
At the beginning of the day is exactly when this went off the rails: when Shapiro decided ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property’ was optional. The funny part here is you trying to turn basic obedience to court orders into some kind of moral halo. Yes, he’ll ‘respect the rulings’ after he uses state police, surveys, and adverse‑possession theories to grab land his own survey and the tax map say belongs to the neighbors. That’s not rule‑of‑law sainthood; that’s testing how far you can go until a judge finally tells you to knock it off.
And if your standard is ‘oath of office,’ you might want to read what the neighbors actually allege: that his team offered to buy and then lease the strip, got told no, and only then started talking about “alternative actions” and treating it as their own. That’s a very weird way to show respect for someone else’s deed. Meanwhile, Tom Homan running his mouth on Fox about not caring what judges think is bad, full stop; the fact that you can point to one Trump guy who says the quiet part out loud does not magically convert Shapiro’s fence‑and‑troopers routine into an act of constitutional piety. ‘At the end of the day’ doesn’t clean up what he chose to do at the beginning of it.
Olly, you’re treating a standard quiet title action like it’s a middle-ages land grab. In the American legal system, ‘coveting thy neighbor’s property’ isn’t what’s happening here—resolving a 23-year-old boundary error through the courts is.
Let’s look at the actual ‘beginning of the day’ timeline:
Stewardship, Not Seizure: This didn’t start with a ‘fence-and-troopers routine.’ It started in 2003 when the Shapiros began maintaining land that everyone—including the previous owners—believed was theirs. Under Pennsylvania law, if you openly care for land for 21 years, the legal title essentially ‘vests’ in you. Shapiro isn’t ‘testing how far he can go’; he’s asking a judge to formalize a reality that has existed for over two decades.
Negotiation is the Rule of Law: You find it ‘weird’ that they offered to buy or lease the land first. In the real world, that’s called a good-faith effort to avoid litigation. Penalizing someone for trying to settle a dispute before filing a lawsuit is the quickest way to ensure every neighborly misunderstanding turns into a courtroom battle.
The State Police Context: You keep mentioning ‘troopers’ as if they were used to seize the land. They were there because of a documented arson attack on the Governor’s official residence. Security upgrades at a Governor’s private home are a standard state police mandate, not a personal tactical squad for a yard dispute.
Comparing a Governor who is actively using the court system to settle a title dispute with officials who openly brag about ‘not caring what judges think’ is a massive reach. One is following the rule of law to its conclusion; the other is threatening to dismantle it. At the end of the day, filing a lawsuit is how we civilly resolve disputes in this country—it’s not ‘optional’ morality, it’s the legal process in action.
Be encouraged. The truth is out there. Keep looking for it.
One commenter below said:
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.
Putting aside that nobody is required to sell their property just because someone else offers a fair price, the more important point is this: if in fact the Mocks were not intending to sue but were “nudged” by a lawyer to do so for partisan political reasons, that would cast this case in a different light. But I didn’t see anything to that effect in Professor Turley’s article. So, does anyone know if the commenter’s claim is true, or is she just making it up?
Oldman, Shapiro’s office pointed out that Zimolong is the third attorney the Mocks have used in this dispute, suggesting they may have been seeking a specific legal or political strategy.
The lawsuit coincides with a Republican-led state Senate investigation into the use of taxpayer funds for the Governor’s private home security. Shapiro allies have suggested Senate leadership may have played a “behind-the-scenes role” in the dispute.
While there is no “smoking gun” admission from the Mocks, the combination of a high-profile Republican campaign lawyer and a coordinated legislative investigation provides the factual basis for the claim that the case is being used as a political tool.
Oldman, Shapiro’s office pointed out that Zimolong is the third attorney the Mocks have used in this dispute, suggesting they may have been seeking a specific legal or political strategy.
Think about that for just a minute:
Lawyer one: “Let’s try and get your land back.”
Lawyer two: “My strategy is different: let’s try really hard to get your land back.”
Lawyer three – the political lawyer: “I have a political angle on this, and a completely different legal strategy – let’s try really really hard to get your land back, because then the Shapiros will lose, unlike with your previous lawyers where, if you got your land back with their strategy, the Shapiros would lose.”
Oldmanfromkansas, think about it for a minute. Lawyers are hired to do what the client wants. Lawyers are not going in thinking about what the client would want. Right?
Perhaps prior lawyers were helping the Mocks with the offers to buy the land. The third one was “suggested” by a “friend” who knew about the well connected one.
Google pays $95 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8200 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $15k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I’m not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern…………. GOOD LUCK.
==–=======>>) https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
BAN FOR LIFE!
I’ve been a fan of Jonathan Turley for over 20 years, because he used to put the “constitutional rule of law” first and foremost before partisan politics.
Back in the early 2000’s Turley was very brave pointing out that George W. Bush violating fellow Republican Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty could be considered a “war crime”. Also the Orwellian “Total Awareness” and a “Preemption” policy that blatantly violated the 4th Amendment and most of the Bill of Rights – Turley opposed all of those things contrary to the constitutional rule of law.
Turley then correctly opposed extrajudicial assassinations of native born U.S. citizens (with rights of due process) and an Executive Branch agency breaking into a Legislative Branch office building and stealing documents. Depicted in the film “The Report” starring Adam Driver portraying Daniel Jones. Republican war crimes covered up by Democrats.
Fast forward to 2025-2026: we have a president that illegally tried to amend the 14th Amendment, bypassed Congress in appropriating and managing tax dollars, bypassed Congress to kidnap a foreign head of state, bypassed Congress to assassinate fisherman in Venezuela, bypassed Congress to declare war on Iran and bypassed Congress in trying to annex Greenland and Canada.
For sake of argument, let’s say Trump had really great ideas. Why not go to Congress? Republicans would quickly rubber-stamp any thing he asked for legally. Why break the law and be disloyal to his oath of office when Congress would approve it?
We have a president with limited prescribed constitutional authority trying to dictator (Trump’s own words) and we are focusing on a neighbors property dispute. Is this really the top priority today on the “constitutional rule of law” topic that Turley is one of the best in the world at? Many of us want the old Turley back.
Even if you support your favorite president having unlimited authority (dictator authority), do you want the other party to have this authority when they retake control of government? Would you like a dictator if they were a Democrat and Democrats controlled Congress?
Congress is in gridlock and the dems did exactly the same thing Trump did when Biden was president. So how do you unlock the gridlock?
Framing this as ‘bigger issues vs a neighbor dispute’ misses the problem completely. We have big and small rule‑of‑law failures all over the place, and almost nobody is willing to ask why. Pretending we can only care about presidents and wars while shrugging at governors using troopers and legal tricks on their neighbors is actually the laziest move in the book. It keeps the argument stuck on small vs large, Republican vs Democrat, instead of admitting that the entire system is drifting. And it is drifting for a simple reason: the ceiling of government competence is set by the floor of the citizens’ capacity for self‑government. If we cannot see why this kind of local abuse of power is a problem, we should not be surprised when the same mentality shows up at the national level.
It’s not a local abuse of power. It’s a neighborly misunderstanding on a property boundary, that’s it.
The state trooper issue has more to do with security because there has been an attack (arson) on the governor’s mansion. Since Shapiro is still the governor he can place state police on the property in question to ensure his safety until the property boundary issue is resolved and a security fence can be installed on the actual boundary. Whichever that ends up being after litigation or settlement.
A neighborly dispute is your sprinklers watering my car or your dog crapping in my yard. A governor using troopers and a $1.1M taxpayer‑funded security project to sit on a 3,000‑sq‑ft strip the deed and tax map put on his neighbors’ side, while those troopers tell the neighbors to get off what they say is their own property, is something else entirely.
Olly, again, you’re trying to make this into a much bigger thing than it is.
You keep ignoring the fact that the Governor’s mansion was attacked by an arsonist and seeking enhanced security for his residence is not unreasonable. The troopers can legitimately be there since he’s the Governor. The money for the fence is the only issue that has some validity since it is state money being spent for a private property.
They have to resolve the property dispute in court. For the time being the property is still assumed to be Shapiro’s.
You argue that a deed and a tax bill should be the end of the story. If that were true, the doctrine of adverse possession wouldn’t exist. The law explicitly recognizes that if a record owner ‘sleeps on their rights’ while a neighbor treats the land as their own for over two decades, the physical reality eventually overrides the paperwork.
They could have settled before it became news if the Mocks chose to sell the property. But, I suspect the lawyer ingratiated himself onto the Mocks to try to persuade them to fight for the land and use it to make a political scandal about it.
… we have a president that illegally tried to amend the 14th Amendment
That kind of talk outs you as an unserious person suffering from serious TDS. Any high school civics student knows that no matter what anyone says they are going to do, it is impossible for them to unilaterally amend the Constitution. If Trump said he would take a space ship to the Andromeda galaxy and bring back a new Constitution, that would be no more impossible for him to do. But anyone who complained in all seriousness that he was “illegally trying to replace the Constitution” would be considered mentally defective.
Let’s take that “constitutional rule of law” back to 1791 with a stop in 1819 when Chief Justice Marshall, despite his maximal effort, could not find an enumerated power allowing the establishment of a national bank, leading him to arbitrarily “interpret” and transform (i.e. amend) the “Necessary and Proper” clause into “legitimate” and “appropriate” regarding his irrefutably unconstitutional decision on the matter, understanding that the “Necessary and Proper” clause pertains to merely “the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers,” which omit and exclude a national bank and any power to operate a commercial enterprise or regulate the banking industry.
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
– Chief Justice Martial, McCulloch v. Maryland
The National Bank Acts and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were similarly without any citable legal basis and remain wholly unconstitutional, as does the entire communist American welfare state.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
If you’re concerned that someone may be possessing your property adversely, and the statutory period (eg, 21 years) has not been satisfied yet, you can put the clock back to zero by writing that person a letter giving them temporary permission to use the land, and keep a copy of that letter safely in your records. That proves that at the time of your letter the possession was not adverse to you, ie, not hostile.
(Disclaimer: consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for definitive advice)
I think the wrinkle is that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognizes a doctrine of Consentable Lines.
Assuming PA recognizes that doctrine, it does not contradict what I said. In my example, the letter does not consent to any line favored by the occupier, it gives the occupier permission to occupy a portion of the land on the letter-writer’s side of the line. That is pretty much the opposite of consenting to the occupier’s preferred line.
The virtues we need in citizens to keep a constitutional republic going cut the other way from what Shapiro is modeling here. Self‑government depends on people who respect clear boundaries, honor the spirit of their agreements, and refuse to use legal technicalities to get what they could not get by open consent. When a governor leans on doctrines like adverse possession, backed by troopers, to squeeze a neighbor off deeded land, it does not just raise a property question. It undercuts the very habits of honesty, restraint, and respect for limits that a self‑governing people are supposed to cultivate.
Well said, Olly!
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/
To address your last point first, that link is to a statute of limitations. That doesn’t seem like the same 21 years as for the adverse possession theory referenced in paragraph 18.
Whether the Mocks paid taxes for 9 years or 29, they weren’t expecting litigation until cops denied access during the last year.
No, no. I was referring to details for (1) whether those other incidents occurred -with protest from Mocks- PRIOR to 2024 (thereby defeating Shapiro’s 21 years, OR,
(2) since Mocks only owned it for nine years, whether, in the 16-17 years prior to Mocks (and assuming privity of title) the PREVIOUS TITLE OWNERS of Mock’s property had objected to or taken action against Shapiro, (notice, non-legal complaint, trespass? encroachment?), –thus breaking the chain of 21 years.
(In other words, “tacking” of title owners/possessors applies equally to title owners as it might to adverse possessors, so that ANY complaints or assertion of ownership against Shapiro–even by Mock’s previous title owners (the people Mocks bought it from) in the last 21 years–not just by Mock–could defeat Shapiro’s adverse possession.
Does that make more sense; sorry if it does not.
Creekan: sorry I forgot to address your particular reference to Para 18.
I do not find that conclusive. Indeed, I once offered a modest sum to owners of adjacent property to the one that I was purchasing, -to avoid any dispute between conflicting surveys. The previous owners to my piece had possessed and maintained it for decades. If my new neighbors had refused, in the alternative, I could have tacked on the previous owners of my new parcel and claimed it under adverse possession. (I didn’t have to; they accepted my offer. After purchase, the new survey was signed by the neighbor and attached to my new title and his old survey stakes were removed.)
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.
Anonymous, still think state taxes are pass throughs?
You missed the whole point about the issue. The Mocks never knew the land the Shapiros were taking care of was theirs. They assumed it belonged to the Shapiros until the survey for the security fence they wanted to install showed them it was.
The hiring of a lawyer, which I never said they couldn’t, is only suspicious because the lawyer has deep connections with the Republican Party and conservative causes.
X, you’re taking Shapiro’s spin and treating it like it’s carved in stone. The only place I see “the Mocks never knew it was theirs” is in his countersuit and his defenders’ talking points. The Mocks’ own lawsuit tells a very different story: they bought the place in 2017, that strip is in their deed and on their tax bill, the 2025 security survey finally made the mismatch impossible to ignore, Shapiro then tried to buy or lease the strip, they said no, and only after that did he pivot to adverse possession and troopers on this suddenly “disputed” area.
Before 2017, the Mocks weren’t even on the scene, so they obviously did not spend “23 years” believing anything about that boundary. After 2017, you’ve got two clashing narratives: Shapiro says they didn’t realize the line until he kindly enlightened them; they say they asserted their ownership, offered a lease when he wouldn’t meet their price, and then watched him treat their refusal as a reason to ask a court to hand him their land anyway. That is nowhere close to the tidy story that they were happily clueless until some Republican lawyer wound them up.
And even if I humor your “they didn’t know” premise, it still doesn’t get you where you want to go. In the real world, people constantly discover they own valuable rights only when something brings them to the surface: folks who only find out about oil and gas rights when a driller or landman shows up, families who suddenly learn they control subsurface storage space when an energy project targets their land, heirs who first hear about mineral interests when lease offers start hitting the mailbox. The fact that an owner didn’t know every inch of what they owned on day one does not mean they never owned it or somehow waived it; it just means nobody had a reason to fight over it until it became valuable.
So if your whole defense of this boils down to “they didn’t realize it was theirs, so it’s fair game,” that is out of step with how property actually works and with how these disputes play out in the real world.
Olly, The claim that the Mocks ‘always knew’ the land was theirs only appears in a lawsuit filed by a lawyer with deep partisan ties. In reality, neither party recognized the boundary error until a 2025 security survey made the mismatch impossible to ignore. The Shapiros’ initial offer to buy or lease the strip wasn’t a ‘concession’ of a weak case—it was a standard attempt to resolve a neighborly mistake.
You are arguing for the sanctity of deeds, but property law rewards active stewardship over ‘paper’ rights. Unlike passive assets like mineral rights, surface land requires maintenance. Because the Shapiros have openly cared for this property since 2003, their adverse possession claim is a direct reflection of 23 years of physical reality, regardless of what a long-ignored tax bill says.
. . . lawsuit filed by a lawyer with deep partisan ties . . .
Your obsession with an irrelevancy shows you to be a complete moron. The lawyer is the client’s hired gun, to bring a lawsuit where the client might win, such as here. A lawyer speaks for the client, and has a professional obligation to zealously represent and advance the client’s best interests. This is a property dispute. Property disputes happen all the time. They are not like election litigation, they are disputes between two neighbors. If you have evidence that the lawyer is somehow running this lawsuit as a partisan exercise, that would be one thing. But you supply none. Get over it.
It’s amusing how you don’t get the context on why the lawyer’s connections is important. All I’m saying is it is pretty sketchy that a lawyer with deep partisan connections found himself hired by the Mocks to sue a Democrat governor. Just the fact that he is indeed deeply connected says a lot about the intended target which seems to be more of political scandal manufacturing in the midst of the governor’s re-election campaign.
You keep making that accusation, but you provide no evidence about a political motive here. I guess it has escaped you that landowners might be motivated to sue to keep their land . . . because they don’t like losing their land.
Anonymous, Oh, absolutely—I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence that these ‘humble landowners’ just happened to find a lawyer who specializes in Republican ‘lawfare’ and was counsel for the Trump campaign.
If you think a high-profile attorney like Wally Zimolong—the guy the RNC calls for election integrity lawsuits—took a ‘pro bono’ interest in a 2,900-square-foot backyard strip purely out of a passion for mowing rights, I have a bridge in Harrisburg to sell you.
It’s also a total ‘mystery’ why this lawsuit perfectly coincided with a Republican-led Senate investigation into the Governor’s security funding.
I guess in your world, coordinated attacks by political rivals and campaign lawyers are just ‘neighborly concern.’ Most people call it a textbook political stunt.
And if the Mocks used any other lawyer, the political effect on Shapiro would be the same. It’s not like the Mocks were going to find out about possibly losing their land and say, “lah de dah so we lost a chunk of our land, whoopsie that’s the way things go.” The lawyer’s political ties are completely and utterly irrelevant.
The hiring of a lawyer . . . is only suspicious because the lawyer has deep connections with the Republican Party and conservative causes.
That’s so incredibly ridiculous. Lawyers are hired guns, obligated to serve their cleints’ interests. Hiring a lawyer is often advisable and never “suspicious.” You’re a complete moron.
Why would it be ridiculous? How does a lawyer well connected to the Republican Party and the Trump campaign get hired by the Mocks. He specializes in arguing conservative causes and represents Republican lawmakers. Does he even have experience in property law?
It looks suspicious that a deeply connected lawyer who represents conservative causes and Republican lawmakers somehow ended up being hired by the Mocks.
What is being ignored is the fact that Shapiro did the right thing by offering to buy the land. Once it was challenged AFTER the sketchy lawyer got hired Shapiro used a completely legal way to keep the land he though it was his and his neighbors though was Shapiro’s.
Lots of lawyers are active in politics and also handle tons private cases having nothing to do with election law in order to make a living. I know quite a few politically-active lawyers where most of their cases have nothing to do with politics but with making a living. Your imagination is cramped. There is a legit land dispute here. This is not lawfare. Only a thief thinks everyone else is a thief, so I guess it makes sense that only lawfare-wagers think everyone else is motivated by lawfare.
To X, George, what IS (capitalized) important is the lawyer??? When the contrarian oddball can’t defend the Democrat in an issue he forces himself to come up with a completely irrelevant point rather than either say that “yes, the Democrat is wrong here”, or just skip the debate for a change.
Shapiro wasn’t paying taxes on the land and in fact the other party was paying the taxes, wasn’t using the land for at least 21 years, wasn’t notorious (until he decided to BUILD A WALL), was hostile, even offered the actual owners of the land money thereby admitting that the other party owned the land and proving that the land wasn’t abandoned.
Liberals are NOTORIOUS for being hypocrites, HOSTILE to private property rights of others, EXCLUSIVE in trying to silence conservatives and TRESPASS on the rights of all Americans.
What I like about your comment hullbobby is that it refuses to let the conversation get stuck on side characters and partisan jerseys. The core facts are simple enough: the tax bill, the deed, the survey, the offers to buy, and the later decision to lean on adverse possession and troopers when the owners would not sell. We can argue doctrine all day, but if we cannot even agree that this kind of slow squeeze by a governor is a bad look for a system that says it protects property rights, then the partisan reflex has swallowed basic judgment.
Olly, there are no “side characters”. It’s about looking at the entirety of the dispute in its proper context.
The core facts are simple:
Nobody knew there was a property boundary discrepancy. Nobody. That includes the prior owners before the Mocks. Both believed the property in question belonged to the Shapiros because THEY were the ones taking care of it. That is an established fact.
Fact: The tax bill is irrelevant. It has no weigh on the determination for invoking adverse possession. The ACTUAL law mentions nothing about tax bills.
Fact: Shapiro IS the governor. He’s entitled to security if he chooses to reside at his private home. After the attack on the governors mansion (the arson attack), the governor chose to install a security fence at his private property and the troopers were put there as a legitimate security concern.
This is not a “slow squeeze” by the governor. It looks more like a republican connected lawyer who once worked for the Trump campaign is using this dispute to cast a political scandal shadow on the Democrat governor in the midst of a re-election push.
Turley is the one twisting this dispute into a partisan “gotcha” scandal while making false claims.
Hullbobby, as usual you have no idea what you’re trying to argue. Pay attention.
Neither the Shapiro’s or the Mock’s or the previous neighbors knew there was discrepancy with the property boundary. The Mocks and the previous owners assumed the property in question belonged to the Shapiros. He wasn’t paying taxes on property he didn’t know was not his and the neighbors were paying taxes on property they didn’t know was theirs.
Shapiro never built a wall or fence on the disputed property. Turley made a false claim about the fence being built. That never happened.
They offered the Mocks to buy the land AFTER they found out the land they have been taking care of for over 20 years was not theirs. They did what any sensible land owner would do, offer to buy it since they have been treating it like it was theirs for over two decades.
You’re just not understanding the issue the way it really is. You’re sticking to Turley’s false narrative. I already proved it was false when he claims a fence was built. That is not true. He also claims the Shapiros are essentially squatters which is also not true.
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.
That’s one version of the facts but it is generally considered sharp-elbowed to build the fence BEFORE getting the Court Decree recognizing the ownership of the disputed parcel.
The fence was never built. Turley’s claim that it was is false.
While it is way too early to reach any legal conclusions, the optics for Shapiro are not good. It looks like he is trying to game the system; playing a game of legal ‘gotcha’ with the Mocks. Well, you know what they say:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
-g
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.
The Mocks had no opinion about Shapiros’ claims to the disputed portion because they didn’t become neighbors until 2017.
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
Sure, a kid shoveling a walk is not the same as a 23‑year maintenance claim. That is exactly why my example was about the moral line, not the technical elements of ‘open and notorious’ use. Property law may say long‑term use can ripen into title in some cases. I am asking a different question: is it healthy for a system that claims to secure clear, recorded rights to let a powerful neighbor say, ‘I used it for a long time, you will not sell, so now I want the courts to give it to me’? Invisible dog fences and lawn care might check doctrinal boxes. They do not erase the fact that the deed and tax bill are in someone else’s name, and that the owner refused to sell. That is the tension I am pointing to.
Olly, you’re moving the goalposts from law to morality. Every legal dispute involves technicalities, and adverse possession was created specifically for this scenario. While you’re focusing on how the situation feels, the court only cares about what the legal text says.
The law is clear: if a party maintains a property openly and exclusively for over 21 years without objection, that physical reality eventually overrides the deed. It doesn’t matter what the tax bill says if neither party realized the boundary was off; once you hit that 21-year mark, the legal right to the land ‘vests.’
The Shapiros offered a fair payout for land the Mocks didn’t even realize was ‘theirs’ until recently. Instead of a common-sense resolution, we now have a lawsuit led by a politically connected lawyer.
You can argue the ‘morality’ of it all day, but the facts of long-term stewardship are squarely on the Shapiros’ side.
No, if Shapiro discovered that the disputed portion of land was within the legal description of the neighbor’s property AND he believed that he owned the disputed portion by virtue of Consentable Lines or Adverse Possession, there would be no need to pay for the disputed property (which he had already owned). You would present your neighbor with an Amicable Action in Quiet Title – a joint pleading seeking a Decree recognizing the transfer of ownership by operation of law. Failing participation by the neighbor, an adverse action would be filed.
Nearly half of all lawyers in the collar counties are “politically connected.” 100% of the Judges were “politically connected.” Shapiro himself was “politically connected” before seeking elected office.
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.
Nope. Nobody knew where the real boundary was. Nobody. Not even the previous owners before the Mocks. Since the Shapiro’s have been taking care of the land for over 21 years the adverse possession law makes it clear the land can be considered Shapiro’s. Nobody contested the land for over 21 years. It was naturally assumed it belonged to the Shapiro’s and when it was found out it did not AFTER 21 years of taking care of it as his own. The law (adverse possession) allows for the land to become Shapiro’s. That’s it.
Not even close pal. A metes and bounds survey is difficult to ascertain exact property bounds whereas today’s ALTA surveys are explicit to lat lon coordinates. This is nothing more than a property boundary dispute and the cards fall primarily in the Mocks hand. I have been through this several times and believe the Mocks will prevail.
Nope all you want !