Property line complaint nets neighbor half garage

A property dispute in Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, concluded recently with a reciprocating saw and a neighbor ending up with half a garage. The conflict began after a property owner complained about items placed near what he insisted was his boundary line. It serves as a clear example of why verifying property lines with a professional is advisable before making demands of neighbors.

According to the report, the Brawn family moved into their home in 2012. The property once included a quarter-acre to the south that had been sold off for a smaller home. Relations remained cordial until 2016, when the owner of the smaller property died. His wife inherited the land, and the report notes that relations became strained with those who rented or otherwise frequented the property afterward. While the report does not specify who was “otherwise frequenting” the property, the recent dispute involved the former owner’s son.

A Survey Reveals the Error

In April, the Brawns placed wood chips in their backyard to facilitate access for a tractor clearing downed limbs. The former owner’s son allegedly planted a stake in the wood chips, claiming ownership of the spot and ordering the Brawns to remove their belongings. Rather than engaging in a heated argument, the family hired a land surveyor to verify the boundary.

Related: Man demands president’s execution without trial

The survey revealed the son was mistaken. The actual property line was located roughly eight to ten feet from his stake. For a relatively small property, this error was substantial. The survey showed the legal boundary ran directly through the middle of the garage standing on the neighbor’s lot. A second surveyor later confirmed these findings.

Situations like this often hinge on the assumption that historical use defines legal boundaries, but survey data frequently tells a different story. While the immediate reaction might be denial, the discovery of an encroachment usually forces a decision between negotiation or demolition. In this specific instance, the lack of a long-standing legal claim likely prevented the neighbor from successfully arguing for the right to keep the structure intact once the true line was established.

Destruction and Demolition

By Memorial Day, the neighbor appeared to accept the survey results. He requested access to the part of the garage sitting on the Brawns’ land to retrieve his father’s ashes. The Brawns agreed to the request. However, the family claims that once inside, the man began throwing trash, smashing glass, and taking bureaus to throw them outside in the yard.

Related: India’s Public Dissent Shrinks as Students Arrested

The following day, Mr. Brawn took action. Using a reciprocating saw, he cut down the half of the garage that was situated on his family’s property. He left the remaining structure on the other side of the surveyor’s line. The local police chief stated that while the department was aware of the months-long dispute, they believe the issue has been resolved at this point and do not anticipate legal proceedings.

A Legal Precedent

This incident mirrors a 2014 property dispute in Minnesota. In that case, a property owner used a chainsaw to slice a shared building in half. The neighbor sued, arguing that due to the passage of time, he either owned the land under the other half of the garage or had the right to use it—legal concepts known as adverse possession or a prescriptive easement.

The case went to trial, and the plaintiff lost. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in 2016. The court noted that it did not condone the manner in which the respondent removed the portion of the buildings located on his side of the property line, but held that under the circumstances, it was not a trespass. The outcomes in both cases suggest that while cutting a structure in half is an extreme solution, it is occasionally the result of unresolved boundary grievances.