The legal battle that followed was the stuff of local legend. Vance hired a team of high-powered city
lawyers who threw everything they had at the wall. First, they tried to claim 'adverse possession'—squatter's
rights. But my lawyer easily defeated that; adverse possession in our state required twenty years of
continuous, undisputed occupation. Vance's house had been built three years ago.
Then they tried to claim the survey was flawed. The judge ordered an independent court-appointed survey.
The court surveyor spent a week on the property and returned with a map identical to Elias Thorne's. The pins
were absolute.
Finally, Vance's lawyers threw themselves on the mercy of the court, arguing that forcing him to demolish
a third of a four-million-dollar home over a 'simple mistake' was an unreasonable hardship. They argued for a
forced sale of the land at market value.
My lawyer stood up, adjusted her glasses, and presented Exhibit A: The laminated demolition notice Vance
had signed for my grandfather's barn. "Your Honor," she said smoothly, "the defendant has established a clear
standard of behavior regarding property disputes. When he believed, incorrectly, that my client's historic barn
was on his property, he did not seek a forced sale. He did not seek a compromise. He sent a bulldozer while
my client was out of town. We are simply asking the court to apply the exact same remedy the defendant