Gov. Josh Shapiro and Neighbors Locked in Federal Legal Battle Over Security Fence and Property Lines
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has entered a high-stakes legal dispute with neighbors at his private residence in Abington Township, sparking dueling lawsuits over an eight-foot security fence, allegations of government overreach, and the use of State Police on private land.
The conflict, which escalated into federal court this week, centers on a roughly 2,900-square-foot strip of land bordering the Shapiro family’s long-time home in Montgomery County. Neighbors Jeremy and Simone Mock filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Governor of an “outrageous abuse of power,” alleging he has unlawfully annexed their backyard and deployed Pennsylvania State Police to enforce a “security zone” on property they legally own and pay taxes on.
Simultaneously, Governor Shapiro and his wife, Lori, have filed a countersuit in Montgomery County Court, seeking a “quiet title” to the disputed strip. The Shapiros argue they have legally acquired the land through “adverse possession”—a legal doctrine often referred to as “squatter’s rights”—claiming they have maintained and exclusively used the area for over 21 years, well beyond the state’s statutory requirement.
Security Concerns Drive Expansion
The dispute originated in July 2025, when the Shapiros approached the Mocks about installing a high-security fence. This move followed a serious security breach in April 2025, when an arsonist firebombed the Governor’s official residence in Harrisburg while the First Family was inside. Following the attack, security protocols were intensified at the Governor’s private home in Abington.
According to the Mocks’ complaint, the Shapiros initially offered to purchase or lease the strip of land necessary for the fence. When negotiations dissolved, the Governor’s legal team allegedly pivoted strategies, informing the neighbors they would acquire the land through “alternative actions.”
Allegations of Intimidation and Overreach
The Mocks’ lawsuit paints a picture of aggressive state intervention. They allege that uniformed Pennsylvania State Police troopers have been directed to patrol the disputed yard, ordering the family to exit their own property and blocking contractors from installing a fence of their own. The complaint details instances of drones flying overhead and the Governor’s team planting arborvitae trees to physically demarcate the seized territory.
“The Shapiros continue to occupy the Mock Property without permission or any legal justification whatsoever,” the lawsuit states, arguing that the Governor is using his office to trample the property rights of private citizens.
The “Political Stunt” Counter-Narrative
Governor Shapiro’s office has strongly pushed back against the allegations, characterizing the lawsuit as a politically motivated attack. A spokesperson for the Governor called the filing a “shameless political stunt” designed to exploit the family’s legitimate safety concerns.
Supporters of the Governor point to the representation of the Mock family by Wally Zimolong, a prominent attorney known for representing conservative causes and political campaigns, including those of former President Donald Trump. Shapiro’s legal team maintains that the boundary line has been established by usage for decades—long before the Mocks purchased their home in 2017—and that the neighbors raised no objections until the security fence became an issue.
The Legal Doctrine of Adverse Possession
The core of the Governor’s defense relies on Pennsylvania’s adverse possession laws. To succeed, the Shapiros must prove their possession of the land has been “actual, continuous, exclusive, visible, notorious, distinct, and hostile” for at least 21 years. They assert that since purchasing their home in 2003, they have treated the fence line as the true boundary, maintaining the landscaping and using the space exclusively, which they argue legally transfers ownership regardless of the deed’s text.
Conversely, the Mocks argue that the Governor’s initial offer to buy the land serves as an admission that he knew he did not own it, potentially undermining the “hostile” requirement needed to claim adverse possession.
As the litigation proceeds, the disputed strip of land remains under tight surveillance, illustrating a complex collision between executive security needs, private property rights, and suburban neighbor relations.
dailyvoice.com
inquirer.com
nationaltoday.com
inquirer.com
courthousenews.com
glensidelocal.com
patch.com
dailyvoice.com
courthousenews.com
cbsnews.com
youtube.com
