Man Takes Neighbors to Court Over 10-Foot Patch of Grass Between Their Houses
Robert Frost famously wrote, “Good fences make good neighbors.” Most people interpret that to mean that having a fence can help you set boundaries, both physically and emotionally.
However, in the real world, good fences don’t mean much in a court of law, especially when it comes to property lines. That’s a lesson a pair of neighbors learned the hard way when they found themselves locked in a lengthy legal battle over a 10-foot stretch of grass between their homes.
The argument came down to whether the strip belonged to Anthony and Stephanie Campisi, who purchased their property in 2017, or Chardimimos Sacarellos, who argued that he had taken ownership of the land back in the 1980s when he began mowing and maintaining that portion of the yard.
Sacarellos argued that he was further entitled to the land because the previous owners had built a fence inside the property line, essentially forfeiting the space outside the fence through adverse possession. Unfortunately, a judge didn’t see things the way that Sacarellos did, and he ended up in an expensive legal battle within Pennsylvania Superior Court that didn’t go quite how he expected it to.
The Grass Area Was Between Two Multi-Acre Estates
According to the legal filing posted on Justia U.S. Law, the adjoining properties featured a grass strip that had been cut off from the Capisis’s fence, which was installed decades ago by a prior homeowner. Sacarellos had purchased his home in 1981. The multi-acre estate abutted the property next door, which was owned by Jay Christ at the time.
Over the years, the property was purchased and sold multiple times, including to Robert and Cheryl Rhein in 1992. During that time, the court documents say the property had a wooden fence that was set back from the property line. Someone had also planted a row of burning bushes along the fence line between the Rheins’ home and Sacarello’s home.
A Plastic Fence Was Installed
The Rheins continued to live in the home until 2005. At some point during that time, they replaced the wooden fence with a more modern white plastic one. They didn’t get a survey at the time because they believed that the fence and burning bushes marked the property line.
However, the Rheins continued to maintain the grass strip between the two properties. In 2005, the property was sold to Theodore and Mary Drabik, who, Sacarellos says, did not mow the grass strip, which is when Sacarellos began taking over the lawn care.
The New Owners Hired Landscapers to Maintain the Property
The property once again changed hands in 2017; this time it was sold to Campisi. The couple immediately hired a landscaping company to take care of the yard, including the grass strip. According to the court documents, the couple believed their property line extended outside of the fence because, “generally speaking, fences are not exactly on the property line.”
During this time, Campisi maintained one half of the 10-foot strip while Sacarellos maintained the other half. However, in 2019, they removed the white plastic fence in favor of pine trees. A year later, they had the property surveyed. When the surveyor put the stakes in the ground along the boundary line on the land Sacarellos thought he owned, the man was said to have “had a very adverse reaction” to the news.
The Property Dispute Went to Court in 2023
Everything came to a head in 2023, when Campisi filed a Writ of Summons against Sacarellos and his wife (although when the couple later divorced, she was dropped from the case). Sacarellos responded with an answer, saying that he had maintained “exclusive possession of the [grass strip] since April 17, 1986, and [he] has cared for and maintained the [grass strip] in an open, continuous, and notorious manner since that date.”
The case eventually went to a bench trial, where the former owners and landscapers testified about the 10-foot stretch of grass. Later, the trial court said, “We must discount [Mr. Sacarellos ‘ testimony] greatly. It was apparent that his memory had faded tremendously, as he simply could not recall the answer to many questions.”
In the end, the court found in favor of Campisi, saying that the 10-foot section of grass belonged to them all along. Sacarellos appealed, but ultimately lost, closing the door on the question of who rightfully owned that section of land once and for all.
