Neighbor Disputes

Neighborhood disagreements can arise over property lines, fences, trees, noise, or shared driveways, potentially leading to tension and disrupted friendships. In Scranton, Pennsylvania, these conflicts often involve complex laws, zoning regulations, and local ordinances that can be challenging to navigate. The legal team at Polishan Solfanelli approaches these disputes with a thorough understanding of the community landscape and a commitment to protecting clients’ interests. By focusing on clear communication and negotiation strategies, they help individuals address issues before they escalate into prolonged legal battles. Whether resolving boundary disputes, mediating noise complaints, or advocating for fair property rights, they are dedicated to seeking effective solutions. Through careful attention to each situation, they offer personalized guidance and collaborate closely with clients to find practical resolutions. For legal assistance in Scranton, Pennsylvania neighbor disputes, call Polishan Solfanelli at 570-562-4520 today and learn how they can help preserve harmony and peace in your neighborhood.

Boundary Disputes 

Boundary disputes in Pennsylvania can arise from a variety of circumstances, including unclear deed descriptions, overlapping fences, landscaping that encroaches onto another property, or longstanding misunderstandings about where one lot ends and another begins. Because these conflicts can greatly affect a property owner’s sense of security—and can also sour relationships with neighbors—understanding the legal principles at play is beneficial.

Pennsylvania property lines are typically established by what the original deed states, but over time, markers may shift, fences might not align perfectly, or the landscape itself can change. To address these uncertainties, a licensed surveyor is often essential. Surveyors analyze deeds, plot plans, and historical records to determine the precise boundary, then place stakes, flags, or other markers on the land. This professional opinion can settle many arguments by clearly identifying the lines. In scenarios where both neighbors wish to avoid protracted conflict, sharing the cost of a single survey can produce a mutually accepted set of markers and reduce the likelihood of accusations that one party sought out a “favorable” result.

However, if a boundary line remains disputed after a survey, neighbors may enter into a written lot line agreement. Under Pennsylvania’s statute of frauds, any legal interest in real property, including adjustments to a boundary line, must generally be in writing and should be recorded with the recorder of deeds in the appropriate county. A proper boundary line agreement clearly identifies the property line and is signed by both owners. Recording this document ensures there is an official record of the new boundary, preventing future questions if one of the properties is later sold.

Beyond formal surveys and agreements, neighbors sometimes find themselves in conflict over whether one party has gained rights to part of the other’s land through adverse possession. In Pennsylvania, adverse possession requires that the occupier demonstrate open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious use of the land for at least 21 years, all without the true owner’s permission. The theory is that if you knowingly allow someone else to treat your land as if it were theirs for over two decades, you have forfeited your rights to object. Typical examples might include that small strip of land a neighbor has fenced in and mowed for decades or a driveway that crosses a corner of a lot without the owner’s objection.

Similarly, Pennsylvania recognizes boundary by acquiescence—often called a “consentable line.” This concept also uses a 21-year period but is distinct from adverse possession. Under consentable lines, both neighbors must effectively treat a certain line (for instance, a fence or a row of trees) as the true boundary for 21 years. Unlike adverse possession, where one party’s claim is largely unilateral, a consentable line usually involves mutual recognition. If both owners mow, landscape, or otherwise behave as though a fence is the correct boundary—never contesting its location—the law eventually treats that fence as the legal property line. Courts will look for evidence that both parties acknowledged and believed that fence or marker to be the actual dividing line.

Because consentable lines and adverse possession both involve a 21-year timeframe, they are sometimes confused. The essential difference is that adverse possession can arise from unilateral action by the person occupying the land, whereas consentable lines rely on a sort of tacit agreement by both neighbors. An owner who ignores a neighbor’s use of the land for 21 years might see an adverse possession claim. By contrast, if both neighbors believed a fence was the correct divider and acted accordingly, they could effectively have a consentable boundary. In litigation, parties must carefully present evidence of how each type of claim applies to their specific situation.

When conflicting claims persist, some Pennsylvania property owners turn to court. Two legal actions often come up: quiet title and ejectment. A quiet title action is commonly used to resolve disputes over property ownership or the validity of a boundary. The court analyzes the evidence—surveys, deeds, historical use, and any relevant agreements—and issues a decision that clarifies who holds title to the land in question. Ejectment, on the other hand, is appropriate if someone is physically occupying property without the legal right to do so. If a boundary disagreement has resulted in one neighbor building a structure that crosses the line or otherwise occupying land that does not belong to them, an ejectment action aims to remove the encroacher and restore possession to the rightful owner. Understanding the differences between these actions can help property owners determine which legal proceeding best matches their situation.

As with many neighbor conflicts, not every boundary dispute should go straight to the courtroom, as litigation can be expensive and time-consuming. Mediation—where a neutral arbitrator facilitates a conversation to create common ground—can help neighbors reach an agreement. Still, if mediation or informal negotiations fail, the next step often involves assembling evidence: surveys, photographs of fences or usage over time, witness testimony about land usage, and documents showing how each neighbor interacted with the disputed area. Thorough recordkeeping helps if a property owner must ultimately prove adverse possession, consentable lines, or the original location of the boundary in court. If you need help navigating a property boundary conflict, a lawyer in Scranton, Pennsylvania can provide guidance on your rights and legal options.

Noise Disputes 

Noise disputes are especially common in Pennsylvania’s residential settings, where a neighbor’s late-night parties, persistent dog barking, or loud machinery can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of a home. Pennsylvania does not have one uniform noise law across the entire state; instead, each township, borough, or city typically adopts its own regulations. These local ordinances often specify acceptable decibel levels and times—such as “quiet hours” from late evening until early morning—during which noise levels must remain below a set threshold.

When loud or repetitive disturbances occur, the first step is often a polite conversation with the neighbor. In many cases, a neighbor simply may not realize how much the sound travels through walls, yards, or shared spaces. If direct communication fails, checking the municipal code is the next step. Local authorities might issue warnings or citations if a property owner violates a noise ordinance. Fines can sometimes be imposed on repeat offenders, prompting them to address the issue.

At times, neighbors in rural or agricultural areas encounter conflicts involving farm equipment noise, especially early in the morning or late at night during planting and harvest seasons. Pennsylvania’s Right to Farm Law typically protects legitimate agricultural operations from nuisance suits, provided the farm has been in operation for more than a year and follows certain standards. This means if you live next to a farm that occasionally uses loud machinery early in the day, there may be limited legal recourse unless the farm’s practices fall outside normal agricultural operations or violate local regulations. In many counties, local agricultural boards or conservation districts may facilitate discussions to reduce tension, such as encouraging farmers to shift schedules slightly or adopt newer, quieter technology where feasible.

If local law enforcement cannot resolve a persistent noise issue, or if the problem fails to meet the precise requirements of a municipal ordinance but still significantly interferes with property enjoyment, a private nuisance claim might be an option. Under Pennsylvania law, a private nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of one’s property. Courts look at several factors: the nature of the neighborhood, the duration and frequency of the noise, the time of day it occurs, and whether there is a valid justification for the activity in question.

For example, if one neighbor hosts regular, loud events late into the night in a peaceful residential area, it might be considered unreasonable. On the other hand, short-term noise from normal construction during daytime hours may be seen as acceptable. To bolster a nuisance claim, neighbors often gather evidence such as logs of the dates and times of the disturbance, video or audio recordings, testimony from other impacted neighbors, and any medical or personal documentation showing how the noise has affected their health or daily activities.

Sometimes, expert assessments can also be useful. An acoustical professional might measure decibel levels or offer insight into how noise is traveling, particularly if the dispute centers on unclear noise boundaries. Such evidence can bolster a nuisance claim and demonstrate that the disturbance is objectively excessive.

If a private nuisance suit is successful, Pennsylvania courts can issue an injunction limiting or abating the noise or award monetary damages to compensate the aggrieved party for lost enjoyment of their property. In some cases, the court might require a neighbor to install soundproofing, move noisy equipment, or limit parties to certain times. Even so, litigation is costly, so neighbors may prefer mediation or arbitration to preserve goodwill. Mutual agreements, such as building shared sound barriers or agreeing to defined “quiet hours,” can resolve the issue faster and with less expense. A Scranton, Pennsylvania attorney can advise you on your legal options when facing a persistent noise dispute with a neighbor.

Tree Disputes 

Trees, whether on a suburban street or a rural property line, can cause conflicts if branches or roots encroach onto a neighbor’s yard. In Pennsylvania, a property owner typically has the right to trim tree limbs or roots that cross onto their land, but the trimming must not permanently harm the health of the tree or be conducted in a negligent manner. If overly aggressive pruning leads to a tree’s decline or death, the party responsible for trimming could face liability for damages.

A common sticking point arises when a neighbor must enter the tree owner’s land to do necessary pruning. Without explicit permission, stepping over the boundary to trim branches can be considered trespass. In these circumstances, neighbors should have a frank discussion beforehand and, if necessary, draft a short letter granting temporary permission to access the property specifically for pruning. This type of written agreement helps protect all involved parties from misunderstandings or trespass allegations down the line.

If an encroaching tree is unhealthy or poses a danger of dropping limbs onto a house, fence, or driveway, the owner of the tree should address the hazard. Pennsylvania law may hold a tree owner responsible for damage if they knew, or should have known, that the tree was unhealthy and did not take reasonable steps to remedy the risk. In cases involving significant property damage—from a large branch collapsing onto a shed, for instance—an assessment from a professional arborist can be critical. Arborists can testify or document whether disease, rot, or poor maintenance contributed to the incident, potentially strengthening a negligence claim.

In some municipalities, local ordinances or homeowners’ association (HOA) rules regulate the removal of mature or historic trees. Failure to follow these regulations might result in fines or other consequences. Additionally, property lines in more rural or agricultural areas may include orchards or wooded acreage, and disputes can arise if a farming neighbor’s tree branches extend over a fence, dropping fruit or leaves. In such contexts, it can help to consult any relevant agricultural requirements, such as whether the orchard is protected under the Right to Farm Law if it has been operating for a set length of time without prior complaint.

Disagreements over who owns fruit or nuts hanging over the property line can seem minor, but they sometimes fuel larger quarrels. Generally, the tree owner retains ownership of fruit until it naturally falls. Once it falls onto a neighbor’s land, the neighbor may dispose of it or keep it, though actively reaching over the property line to pick fruit may be considered trespass or theft. A friendly conversation about harvesting rights can prevent escalation, and simple agreements can be made allowing the neighbor to pick or keep a certain portion, especially if the tree is prolific.

For tree disputes that remain unresolved, a range of legal remedies exists. An injunction may compel a neighbor to remove or prune a hazard, or the court might award monetary damages if negligence caused property destruction. Before it gets to that stage, property owners often explore mediation, especially if the disagreement mostly revolves around a misunderstanding or communication breakdown about who is responsible for upkeep and how that upkeep should be performed.

If you are dealing with a persistent tree dispute and need guidance on your legal options, consulting an attorney in Scranton, Pennsylvania may be beneficial.

Fence Disputes 

Fences help define boundaries, safeguard privacy, and contain pets or children. However, disagreements may arise over where a fence is placed, how it looks, its height, or who should pay for repairs. Pennsylvania does not have a single statewide fence law that outlines neighbor responsibilities. Instead, local municipalities and sometimes HOAs or condominium associations regulate these issues, setting rules for fence heights, materials, and distances from public roads or sidewalks.

Neighbors who share a boundary fence often work out an informal understanding about splitting the costs of maintenance and repairs, especially if the fence benefits both sides. However, because memory can be unreliable, a written agreement can eliminate guesswork later. This written agreement might address how much each owner will pay for future repairs, who chooses the materials, how disputes are handled, and whether one side can alter the fence unilaterally. Recording such an agreement with the county can provide clarity for any future owner who buys either of the properties.

“Spite fences” are a frequent topic of inquiry in Pennsylvania, particularly when a neighbor builds a fence suddenly and without a clear purpose other than to annoy or hinder the neighboring property owner. For instance, someone might erect an unusually tall or unsightly fence immediately after a feud, blocking light to a garden or overshadowing a patio. Pennsylvania courts generally look at whether the fence has any reasonable use—for example, privacy or pest control—versus whether it seems purely malicious. If the fence unreasonably interferes with a neighbor’s use or enjoyment of their land, a court may find it to be a private nuisance. The court could order modifications (such as reducing the fence’s height) or award damages.

Evidence that a fence is a spite fence might include communication between neighbors suggesting malicious motives, photographs showing its disproportionate size or quick construction after a falling-out, or the absence of any valid reason for that design. Nonetheless, because property owners normally have wide latitude for fence decisions, the complaining neighbor must show a clear link between the inherent nature of the fence and a deliberate intention to harm or annoy.

Remedies for fence disputes can involve mediation, local code enforcement (if the fence violates municipal ordinances on height or location), or civil lawsuits if a nuisance is alleged. A court might direct the removal or alteration of a portion of the fence that trespasses onto the neighbor’s property or that violates local codes. Monetary damages could also be awarded if a neighbor incurred costs, such as having to re-landscape a shaded garden or losing property value due to an eyesore.

Obstructed Views 

Homeowners often place value on scenic vistas or the flow of sunlight into their windows. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania law does not generally recognize a broad “right to a view.” That means that if your neighbor builds a tall structure or plants trees that block your once-panoramic landscape, you usually cannot force them to reduce or remove the obstruction unless an enforceable covenant, easement, or municipal rule provides otherwise.

Some property owners proactively record a “view easement” or covenant in their deed to protect certain sightlines. Such agreements must be in writing, signed, and recorded, just like any other interest in land. If both parties consent to preserve the view, this arrangement can limit how tall a fence or tree can grow and where additions to the house can be constructed. In the absence of a recorded view easement or covenant, there is little legal authority to compel a neighbor to cut down trees that do not violate local ordinances.

In certain locations, zoning laws or HOA rules might restrict the height of fences, hedges, or structures to maintain neighborhood aesthetics or historic integrity. If the neighbor’s newly constructed garage far exceeds local height requirements, you might be able to file a code enforcement complaint. However, if the neighbor stays within legal parameters, the fact that your scenic view has diminished does not usually constitute a legal injury in Pennsylvania.

For those in rural areas, obstructed view complaints occasionally intersect with agricultural activities. Large barns or silos might block a scenic hillside. If these structures comply with zoning and agricultural regulations, there may be no grounds for action. Conversely, if a municipality has special farmland preservation or scenic overlay districts with design guidelines, you could review those rules to see if the obstruction violates any specific development standards.

Where an enforceable easement or covenant exists—and the neighbor disregards it—legal action might become necessary to enforce your rights. A court could issue an injunction to remove or lower the obstruction or mandate compliance with the terms of the covenant. As with any case involving real property, maintaining thorough documentation, including photographs of the original view, copies of the recorded covenant, or communications with the neighbor, will strengthen your position if you must go to court. If you have questions about view rights or enforcement in your area, a Scranton, Pennsylvania lawyer can assist with navigating these legal issues.

Property Damage by Neighbors 

Property damage disputes span a variety of factual scenarios: water runoff caused by poorly designed or altered drainage systems, fallen branches from dead or diseased trees, pesticide overspray drifting onto a neighbor’s garden, or even structural damage from vibration if a neighbor conducts extensive construction work next door. Under Pennsylvania law, a neighbor whose negligent or intentional behavior causes harm to someone else’s property can be held liable for repairs or other compensation.

One common example is improper drainage. If a property owner alters their land in a way that diverts rainwater directly onto a neighbor’s lot, causing flooding in a basement or erosion of soil, that neighbor might assert a trespass or nuisance claim. If the water damage was reasonably foreseeable and the actions taken to redirect the water were gratuitous or careless, liability could follow. In some disputes about large-scale changes, like significant grading or installing drainage pipes, an environmental engineer can provide expert opinions on how the water flow was altered, enhancing a complainant’s case.

Trees also remain a consistent source of damage. A diseased oak tree that the owner fails to remove or maintain may ultimately drop heavy limbs onto a neighbor’s garage, causing substantial harm. If it is shown that the tree’s dangerous condition was known or should have been discovered with normal diligence, the tree owner can be held responsible for repairing or compensating for the damage. Arborists or professional landscapers can testify about the condition of the tree and whether it represented a foreseeable threat.

In a rural context, certain forms of farming activity might cause unintentional damage. For example, drifting livestock may trample a neighbor’s crops. If the livestock owner did not adhere to fencing or containment regulations, they could be financially liable for the destruction. However, the Right to Farm Law may offer partial protection if the farming operation was lawful, preexisted the neighboring property’s use, and was not conducted negligently.

When seeking to resolve a damage claim, property owners typically exchange photos or documentation of the damage, repair estimates, and insurance information. Many homeowners’ insurance policies cover damage from fallen trees or neighbor-caused incidents, though coverage varies. Sometimes, each party’s insurance carriers negotiate a resolution. If a neighbor or their insurance company contests liability, a lawsuit may be required. In Pennsylvania courts, the injured party must prove that the neighbor’s actions were unreasonable, negligent, or intentional, and that the resulting damage was a direct consequence.

Available remedies include money to cover repair costs, compensation for diminished property value, or damages for the lost use of the property if the damage made certain areas unusable for a period of time. In extreme cases—where a neighbor continues harmful activity or refuses to address an ongoing problem—an injunction might be pursued, requiring them to alter their practices to prevent further destruction.

Animal-Related Disputes 

Pets and livestock can present unique challenges in neighborhoods and rural areas. Dogs that bark incessantly can trigger municipal noise regulations, while cats or other animals that roam freely might damage gardens or disrupt flower beds. Owners have an interest in controlling their animals, and neighbors have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property.

Most Pennsylvania municipalities have leash laws or similar ordinances requiring that dogs remain under an owner’s control outside the home. If a dog repeatedly enters your yard, damaging flower beds or frightening children, you may file a complaint with local animal control. In some municipalities, you can also seek a citation if the animal is off-leash in a public space. Persistent barking may violate noise ordinances or nuisance laws, depending on its frequency and duration.

Conversely, in agricultural or rural settings, animals like cows, horses, or goats might wander through fence gaps onto a neighbor’s land. Pennsylvania’s Right to Farm Law typically protects well-managed farms from certain nuisance claims arising from typical farm operations (like livestock sounds or odors), but it does not allow farm owners to neglect basic containment obligations. If a neighbor’s livestock repeatedly cause damage, documenting the incidents is prudent. Photos or videos of the trespassing animals, veterinary or repair bills, and logs of each occurrence provide strong evidence if you choose to pursue a legal remedy.

Animal waste can also become an issue if someone’s pet routinely defecates in a neighbor’s yard and the owner does not clean up. Many local ordinances require owners to pick up waste, and failing to do so could result in fines. In shared residential environments, like condominiums or planned communities, bylaws might impose stricter requirements than the baseline municipal codes, requiring immediate removal of pet waste or restricting certain breeds or types of pets.

If a neighbor’s animal poses a threat—such as a dog that has shown aggression—you may need to involve local authorities like the police or an animal control officer. Pennsylvania law addresses dangerous animals and might give officials the authority to order confinement or other measures. In rare situations, a neighbor can seek a court order if they believe the animal poses a serious risk to public safety.

To resolve animal-related disputes, attempts at communication or mediation may come first, especially if the neighbor is unaware of the extent of the disruption. If mediation fails and the harm continues, filing a private nuisance claim or contacting local authorities are options. Courts might issue injunctions or impose damages if the animal’s behavior seriously infringes on your property rights. In more extreme circumstances—such as repeated break-ins by wandering livestock—code enforcement or local agricultural boards may step in to review the adequacy of the owner’s fences or enclosures.

If you require assistance with a complex animal dispute, a lawyer in Scranton, Pennsylvania can help guide you through the legal options available.

Timeframes, Documentation, and Practical Tips 

For many causes of action under Pennsylvania real property law, timing is critical. Adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence both hinge on whether the occupying or consenting party has maintained use for at least 21 years. Similarly, nuisance claims often look at how long and how frequently a noise or other interference has occurred in deciding if it is unreasonable.

Because of these strict timing elements, keeping a detailed record can be invaluable. Whenever you notice a boundary encroachment, a recurring noise problem, or a minor property damage incident, jot down the date, time, and what occurred. Photos or videos with timestamps provide objective evidence that can be used later if negotiations break down. Copies of survey reports, arborists’ assessments, or letters from environmental engineers (in water runoff disputes) can all strengthen the factual foundation of your position.

Written communication with a neighbor is often helpful before tensions escalate. A polite but direct email or letter describing the issue ensures you have proof that you attempted to address the matter amicably. If the neighbor replies, keep those messages. This kind of record can show a court (if it comes to that) that you acted reasonably, tried to resolve the dispute, and provided clear notice of your concerns.

Although litigation might seem the final solution, Pennsylvania property owners should explore less adversarial options first. Mediation can be a cost-effective, confidential way to find a compromise. Another possibility is arbitration, a more formal process than mediation but still typically faster and less expensive than a full-blown lawsuit. In arbitration, a neutral arbitrator listens to the evidence and makes a binding or nonbinding determination, depending on the agreement of the parties. Both mediation and arbitration rely on cooperation, so if your neighbor refuses to participate, you may need to file a lawsuit.

When a matter finally moves to court, each party will present evidence to support their claims. For boundary conflicts, surveys, deeds, or longstanding usage patterns come into play. For noise or nuisance disputes, testimony from disinterested witnesses—like neighbors who do not have a direct stake—may be particularly persuasive. A well-documented timeline of events underscores the continuity or severity of the issue. Even in property damage suits, photographic evidence of before-and-after conditions, expert valuations, and proof of any negligent acts by the neighbor can tip the scale in your favor.

Additional Considerations 

Pennsylvania law covering neighbor disputes weaves together statewide statutes, local ordinances, and—in some contexts—laws specific to farmland activities. Agricultural or rural disputes can involve issues distinct from suburban or urban settings. The Right to Farm Law, for instance, protects agricultural practices that have been in continuous operation for at least one year and were not a nuisance at the time farming began. If you build a new residence next to an existing farm and then complain about odors or noise from standard farming activities, your legal remedies might be sharply limited. However, if the farm’s activities expand or change significantly in a manner that goes beyond accepted agricultural practices, you might still have recourse under local nuisance regulations or zoning codes. Documenting exactly when and how the farm’s operations changed is essential in such cases.

HOAs, condominium associations, and planned communities often introduce another layer of regulation. Their rules can be stricter than local ordinances, specifying exact fence heights, which trees must be preserved, or what noise levels are permitted at particular times. These associations may have architectural review boards or committees that approve property changes, such as fence installations or significant landscaping. Before undertaking any improvement or considering legal action against a neighbor, property owners in these communities should review their declarations, bylaws, and rules. Sometimes, internal dispute resolution processes must be exhausted before you can escalate the matter to local government or the courts.

Additionally, disputes can involve specialized experts and evidence. While hiring a surveyor or arborist is commonplace, more specialized professionals are sometimes necessary. Environmental engineers might analyze the impact of water runoff or contamination from pesticides. Acoustic engineers can measure persistent noise or design solutions to mitigate it. Real estate appraisers might quantify how a neighbor’s fence, tree, or animal problems diminish property value. Bringing in these professionals can be pivotal if the matter proceeds to litigation, providing the court with technical insight that goes beyond the neighbors’ personal observations.

When conflicts cannot be resolved through direct talks, mediation, or code enforcement, property owners may head to court. Potential remedies vary based on the nature of the dispute. Courts in Pennsylvania can:

• Issue an injunction: This might require a neighbor to cease an activity, remove an obstruction, prune a dangerous tree, or alter a fence.
• Order specific performance: In rare cases, the neighbor might be compelled to fulfill the terms of an agreement—even if it is an unwritten agreement—but usually only when substantial evidence supports the existence of such an understanding.
• Award monetary damages: Damages can compensate for repair costs, reduced property value, lost use, or other harms. The exact calculation depends on the severity and duration of the issue.
• Provide declaratory relief: In boundary disputes, a court might formally declare the true property line or clarify the respective rights and obligations of each neighbor.

Finally, many neighbor disputes can be prevented or defused early with open communication and a willingness to compromise. In Pennsylvania, local codes often have a say in how properties are used, so verifying compliance before making changes—whether by installing a new fence, clearing trees, or adding a structure—reduces the risk of conflict. If a neighbor’s work is obviously contrary to zoning rules, raising your concerns promptly can prevent a more serious situation from arising after significant money has been invested. When neighbors understand each other’s needs and the legal framework that applies, disputes may never escalate beyond a friendly conversation in the backyard. If a dispute becomes unmanageable, working with a Scranton, Pennsylvania attorney can provide guidance tailored to your specific situation.

Knowledgeable Guidance in Real Estate Law

At Polishan Solfanelli, we understand how neighbor disputes can impact property rights, peace of mind, and overall well-being. Whether you have questions about boundaries, noise, trees, or more complex real estate matters, our experienced Scranton, Pennsylvania lawyers can clarify your legal position and recommend practical strategies. From reviewing surveys and deeds to negotiating solutions or pursuing litigation when necessary, we offer a supportive approach that prioritizes your goals. Our team knows that every situation is unique, and we aim to protect clients’ interests with a commitment to thorough investigation and clear communication. We are dedicated to serving homeowners, business owners, and property investors throughout the region, ensuring they stay informed about legal options at every turn. When you need a dependable resource to help secure a favorable outcome in a challenging dispute, call us at 570-562-4520. We stand ready to help you resolve your neighbor conflict successfully and with confidence.