Judge tells 73-year-old widow to let go of ‘obsessive’ 20-year border dispute with her neighbors

A judge has begged an elderly widow to give up a 20-year “obsessive” battle over a garden fence that has generated more than £100,000 in court bills and caused “misery” for her and her neighbours.

Norma Yozin-Smith, 73, claimed the fence between her house and neighbors Anthony and Julie Alexander in New Barnet, north London, wandered into her garden when it was put in place, separating some of her trees and shrubs.

She had claimed that the fence ignored a boundary line mapped by a surveyor who showed where the boundary was between their properties.

But following a trial at Central London County Court, Judge Alan Johns has dismissed most of Ms Yozin-Smith’s case, dismissing allegations that the boundary had been misdelineated. She had also claimed that her neighbors had undermined the foundation of her patio by repeatedly using a jet spray – another claim that was rejected by the judge.

The dispute has already generated more than £100,000 in legal bills and Judge Johns afterwards ‘begged’ the pensioner to give up her fight, which he said ‘brought distress on both her and her neighbours’.

Ms Yozin-Smith has also previously sued the Alexanders over alleged leaks from their swimming pool, a claim that was ‘crossed out’ due to delay in August 2021.

The Alexanders moved to New Barnet in 1998 and raised their family on a quiet and leafy north London street, where houses now sell for £1 million.

Mrs. Yozin-Smith had moved into the house next door six months earlier.

The ‘long-running saga’ about the neighbor’s boundary began in 2002 when both households began arguing over the exact dividing point between their gardens, but in an attempt to settle the dispute, in 2007 they commissioned a specialist surveyor to survey the boundary line to decide. .

The surveyor spoke to both households and drafted a report and final letter before “demarcating the boundary on the ground,” the judge said.

Soon after, the Alexanders erected a fence along part of the new boundary line.

The Alexanders claimed this should have been the end of the rift as both sides had agreed to accept the surveyor’s decision, but Ms Yozin-Smith eventually sued because the final boundary line contradicted the recommendations in the letter from the surveyor.

She claimed that because the line on the ground was in the wrong place, trees, plants, and features of her ended up on the Alexanders’ side of the fence.

In court, however, the couple denied that their fence encroached on the retiree’s property and insisted they were “bent on their backs” to placate her.

Judge Johns, who delivered his ruling, said: “All domestic border disputes are regrettable, but this one is more regrettable than most.

It continues despite being settled by a border agreement 15 years ago, when both sides agreed to be bound by the determination of their shared border by a surveyor – who set out his views on the border in a report on Feb. 9. 2007, revised by letter dated 15 February.

“I think Mrs. Yozin-Smith has long been obsessed with this border. It’s an obsession that has brought misery to both her and her neighbors.

“I beg her to give it up and refrain for her own good and for the good of the Alexanders.”

He further found that the marked boundary line faithfully reflected the surveyor’s report, adding, “I wholly reject her argument that the line marked on the ground did not reflect the February 9 report.”

“But while I have dismissed her case about the position of the border, I think it is important that a statement be made to provide certainty.

‘It follows that the agreed boundary line is represented by the line indicated on the surveyor’s digital plan.

“I’ll declare this and ask Mrs. Yozin-Smith to abide by that decision.”

His verdict was the latest chapter in a ‘long-running saga’ of disharmony between neighbors, including Mrs Yozin-Smith who had previously sued the Alexanders over alleged leaks from their swimming pool.

Her pool leakage claim was ‘slide out’ in August 2021 due to delay.

“It is a saga that has continued despite – as I see it – that the Alexanders did everything they could to avoid this dispute and the efforts of the surveyor,” the judge said.

However, Judge Johns found that part of the Alexanders’ fence was leaning into Mrs. Yozin-Smith’s yard from ruin and was “inconvenient” by law, though the Alexanders have accepted this and agreed to make repairs.

And he went on to find that their fence at the front of their house also partially encroached on Mrs Yozin-Smith’s property, noting: ‘I find there is a nuisance from encroachment up to half the width of some of the posts ‘.

He declined to issue an injunction against the Alexanders to force them to repair their front gate, but said Mrs Yozin-Smith should be entitled to a ‘modest sum’ in compensation.

“I’m thinking of a £500 award,” he told the court.

Judge Johns also found that there were “isolated” incidents of trespass by the Alexanders as they crossed to repair their fence.

He rejected another part of Ms Yozin-Smith’s claim, which claimed that her neighbors had undermined the foundation of her patio through repeated use of a jet spray in their 60-foot garden.

The long-running feud has resulted in huge court bills and a decision on who pays the costs of the most recent part of the dispute will be made by the judge at a later date.