A pensioner has to sell her home to cover a £113,000 legal bill after losing a five-year boundary dispute over a 1ft strip of land. Jenny Field’s feud with her next-door neighbour, Pauline Clark, began in 2020 over the ownership of land between their bungalows in Poole, Dorset.
The row over the placement of a new party fence led to a civil court case which Ms Field lost. Her legal bill was initially under £14,000, but she repeatedly challenged the ruling.
The 76-year-old grandmother has now been told by a judge that she owes Mrs Clark £113,266. She must raise the funds and pay her debt within three months or her £420,000 detached bungalow will be sold from under her so the money can be recouped.
Ms Field failed to attend the hearing at Bournemouth County Court and the matter was heard in her absence. Anna Curtis, who represented Mrs Clark, told the court Ms Field had “no intention” of paying the sums owed and asking for an order for sale was a “last resort”.
She said the ongoing dispute had been incredibly stressful for Mrs Clark, who had undergone private counselling to help her through the “horrendous” situation with her neighbour.
The two women live in a smart cul-de-sac in Hamworthy. Ms Field, a divorcee, bought number one Dean Close in 2016. Mrs Clark, 64, demolished and replaced the wooden fence between the two properties in June 2020, but Ms Field claimed she moved the fence 1ft onto her land.
She hired her own contractors two months later to tear down the 6ft fence and reclaim “her land”. Mrs Clark started legal proceedings for the damage, theft and trespassing in February 2021. The case went to trial and a judge made a final ruling in December 2022.
Ms Field was ordered to pay £11,800 to Mrs Clark for the damage to the fence and a retaining wall, as well as her £2,120 legal costs. Since then there have been further court cases with Ms Field trying to overturn the decision, which have bumped up the total she owes into six figures.
A civil restraint order against Ms Field also had to be made due to the sheer volume of documents she bombarded the court with.
District Judge Ross Fentem said Ms Field had sent the court “hundreds if not thousands” of pages of documents in recent months, which was a disproportionate use of court office staff and justice time.
He said: “The volume of correspondence is plainly excessive and may be perceived as vexatious. Court staff are being diverted from other tasks and putting the justice system under strain, which is unfair on other court users.”
Ms Field tried to claim £500,000 in damages for Mrs Clark’s alleged “sham litigation”, trespass on her land and harassment. She also said she had suffered nearly five years of abuse of the court system, but her application was dismissed by another district judge.
Judge Fentem said Ms Field’s assertions Mrs Clark had made fraudulent claims and it was a sham litigation were “totally without merit” and the other judge’s decision was “entirely right”. He noted Mrs Clark is “not a person who has deep pockets” and had been kept from the money owed to her for a “very considerable period of time”.
Ms Curtis said there is ample equity in Ms Field’s property for her to pay the debt and still be able to buy a comfortable retirement property mortgage free and and have cash leftover. She added: “Those sums have not been paid in any shape or form. The defendant has made it clear she has no intention of paying those figures. She believes they are not legitimate claims and she is not liable for these debts.
“There has been no discussion or offer of settlement, no suggestion of refinancing or obtaining equity on the property. There has been no proper response in relation to the claim. I would invite you to make an order for sale because the matter has been ongoing for five years now.
“Judge Walsh ruled in December 2022 in relation to the boundary dispute. That was intended to be a final order, he clearly advised in that judgement this should be an end to the matter. What followed from there was a brand new civil harassment complaint.
“An order for sale will be the only way in which this matter can be finally concluded and the parties can all move on with their lives. This has been incredibly stressful time for all involved in this case. The claimant has had private counselling to help her through this horrendous stressful process, but an order for sale is the only way this matter can be resolved.
“This is the last resort, all other avenues have been explored.”
Judge Fentem said: “This is a very long-running boundary dispute. The defendant has, in various ways, sought to relitigate the original case.”
He added: “Every attempt to relitigate has failed. She appears to be convinced some form of fraud has taken place. There appears to be no reasoned basis for the allegation. There is no evidence in the documentation any wrongdoing was committed.
“I have no confidence at all the claimant will be paid what she is owed except by an order for sale. This matter needs resolution, the parties need to find a way of putting the entirety of this dispute behind them.
“The order for sale is a last resort and Draconian remedy but taking all the factors into account I should make an order for sale in this case.”
He added another £7,454 costs for this case to the money Ms Field owes. Asked what she plans to do, Ms Field accepted she will have to put her three bedroom home on the market.
She said: “I haven’t got that sort of money. I have estate agents coming round to put my home on the market for £600,000 so that I will have the money to pay the court. I am selling it because I have to and I am fed up with living here but I will offer to pay her £1 per week.”