In a story in Saturday’ edition headlined “Somebody’s Watching … and Ready to Sue,” The New York Times focuses on a Westport dispute over a stone wall on North Avenue that has cost its owner $150,000 in legal fees—so far. 
This stone wall at North Avenue and Northside Lane is the subject of the costly dispute. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
“How and when the story ends is still unclear,” the Times said. “But the dispute opens a window into life in a wealthy suburb, where neighbors have enough money to fight for years over an issue that may have been quickly resolved in a less well-off town.”
The wall belongs to Albert and Susan Hancock and was erected in 2005 at a cost of $170,000. Since then, the newspaper said, they have spent $50,000 on inspections and modifications.
Other players include the Town of Westport, which says the wall encroaches on town property and was built without all the necessary permits, and neighbors Jeffrey and Elizabeth Lillien, the Times said.
The Times reported that the Lilliens, who filed an initial complaint and a lawsuit last year, “say they believe Westport has moved too slowly in the case. They argue that the wall violates environmental laws and that it rests on common property.”
The owners of a disputed North Avenue stone wall cited this 2005 accident involving a Westport fire truck as one reason for building the wall. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) WestportNow.com photo
A Superior Court in Stamford is scheduled to take up the case next week.
Among lessons learned from the dispute, the Hancocks believe they could have presented their case better in public, the newspaper said.
“The Hancocks said their image at town meetings would have been different if they had been better at explaining their reason for building the new wall after eight years of living with the old one,” the Times said.
“On separate occasions, two cars and a town fire truck ran off North Avenue and onto their property. In one accident, only a tree stopped the car from landing in their dining room.
“Their safety concerns were not part of the public discussion, and this shows the importance of making your case early and personally.”
The newspaper said: “If nothing else, the Hancocks’ story is a cautionary tale, illustrating what you should and should not do when your neighbors are watching you.”
Wouldn’t make good headlines, but how about all the instances when neighbors just sit down and figure out a simple resolution of a potential dispute? In our 20 years in town, there have been plenty of possible contentious issues. A conversation or two with a neighbor – – and some agreed sharing of related costs – – has invariably produced a compromise.
Of course, that doesn’t make good headlines.
Great comments by Gordon Joseloff!