At the heart of a quiet rural landscape in Maitai Valley, Nelson, a neighbour-dispute has escalated to a disturbing height that has left a woman feeling unsafe in her own home. Ana Dorrington faces off with her neighbour, Barry McLeod, over a property line and a post that once steadied her verandah, which has been severed amidst their ongoing feud.
In what was once a tranquil corner of the New Zealand heartland, their dispute has reached an intensity that once summoned the Armed Offenders Squad to their doorstep. What began as a minor issue has now found its way to the halls of the District Court.
Dorrington, a 67-year-old woman nearing retirement, had purchased the property in late 2019. She pursues justice in court against McLeod, who claims to have exhausted all options in an attempt to resolve their differences amicably. Depending on a disputed patch of land worth $15,000 – an amount she alleges to be three times its worth – Dorrington finds herself almost $100,000 in debt and is grappling with the burden of legal expenses she had not anticipated.
Believing the wire fence to be the property boundary as assured by the sales agent, Dorrington was blindsided by a legal letter from the McLeods that proved otherwise. The lack of clarity and legal turmoil has taken a harsh toll on her health contributing to two minor heart attacks.
The specific cause of tension arose from a corner post of her verandah that encroached into the McLeods’ property. Authorities acknowledged this as wilful damage, which McLeod is yet to accept responsibility for.
As the dispute continues to eat into her tranquillity, she longs for her safety and peace at home. “I’ve not felt safe in my home for a long time. I’m 67 and exhausted from it all, I’m depressed, it hurts my heart to be in this adversarial situation,” Dorrington disclosed her plight in the Nelson District Court.
The quest for justice is dual-pronged, as she seeks to have small parcels of land identified through a boundary survey vested to her. The importance of boundary formalisation has been emphasized, with a cost estimation of $25,000 and $30,000, for which Dorrington wishes for the McLeods to co-fund.
Pruning and axing of trees aligned along the contentious boundary line became a significant flashpoint that escalated their disagreement, which was previously dormant. The McLeods took severe offence at this, responding by stringing a wire across Dorrington’s house – an act her lawyer labelled as the first step in a pattern of punishing her client.
Dorrington’s refusal to comply with their settlement led to their further ‘punishment’, interpreted as sawing through the roof post for the proposed boundary adjustment. McLeod refutes this and claims it was purely to facilitate fence construction. He further justifies this action as a necessary step to build a garage on his 6000sq m property, a notion questioned extensively in court by Judge Lawrence Hinton.
The familial significance this land holds for McLeod, a native of the site for over a century, adds another layer to the complexity of the dispute. McLeod, in articulating the sacredness of his late mother’s ashes being spread across the land, emphasizes their peaceable co-habitation with prior neighbours.
Looking retrospectively, McLeod confesses his assumption that the sales agent would have resolved the boundary matter and informed potential buyers. The failure of the sales agent to address this matter has now led to a tense standoff, where Dorrington and McLeod find themselves embroiled in a dispute that threatens the tranquillity of their homes and their community.
