The attorney watched more.
“Did she have permission to enter your property?”
“No.”
“Did the fencing company know?”
“Unclear.”
The attorney nodded.
“We send a demand letter.”
The homeowner asked, “Then what?”
“Removal deadline.”
“And if she refuses?”
“Civil action.”
“Can I remove it myself?”
“Possibly.”
The attorney looked at him.
“But after everything she’s already done, I prefer a court order.”
The homeowner nodded.
“So do I.”
The demand letter went out.
Remove the encroaching fence.
Remove personal property.
Stop entering the parcel.
Restore damaged garden areas.
Preserve evidence.
Deadline: ten days.
The Neighbor Woman responded through her own attorney.
That surprised the homeowner.
The letter claimed adverse possession.
Historic boundary understanding.
Good-faith mistake.
Community recognition.
The homeowner’s attorney laughed.
“Good-faith mistake?”
He tapped the video transcript.
“She told the installer to ignore the marker.”
The homeowner asked, “Adverse possession?”
“Not remotely supported by what you’ve described.”
“But she claims family history.”
“Family history is not adverse possession by her.”
The attorney continued reading.
“They’re trying every theory available.”
The homeowner asked, “What now?”
“Now we let them.”
The legal process began.
The Neighbor Woman did not remove the fence.
Instead, she decorated it.
Small flags.
Signs.
Flowers.
As if permanence could be created by appearance.
The homeowner touched nothing.
He gardened around the loss.
He built temporary supports for damaged tomatoes.
Moved irrigation.
Harvested what he could.
And waited.
Then another problem surfaced.
The fencing contractor called him.
Not his attorney.
Him.
The homeowner answered cautiously.
“I installed the fence.”
“I know.”
The contractor sounded uncomfortable.
“I saw the survey stakes.”
“Yes.”
“We were told the orange marker was abandoned.”
The homeowner said nothing.
“She said it was from an old utility line.”
The homeowner looked toward the garden.
“It’s labeled.”
“I know.”
The contractor exhaled.
“My guy asked her.”
“I have video.”
Silence.
“You have what?”
“Security footage.”
Another silence.
The contractor said, “Can my attorney contact yours?”
“Yes.”
That call changed the case.
The fencing company produced its work order.
The Neighbor Woman had signed a site-placement acknowledgment.
It contained a section asking whether the customer had verified property boundaries.
She checked yes.
Another note read:
Customer directed line placement. Existing stake identified by customer as non-boundary marker.
The homeowner’s attorney stared at it.
“That is bad for her.”
“How bad?”
“She represented boundary verification to the contractor.”
The homeowner nodded.
“And we have video showing she was questioned.”
“Yes.”
The attorney smiled slightly.
“She wanted the fence to create the line.”
The homeowner looked confused.