Theoretical Boundary Dispute Case

Neighbor A is suing Neighbor B for breach of property lines in a boundary dispute. Neighbor A had the property lines established and says they told Neighbor B about the breach. Neighbor A says Neighbor B agreed to withdraw their items from the area without question. Neighbor A says that then, Neighbor B did not move their items in a timely manner, and in fact added more items to the area. 

Text messages found through a logical extraction of Neighbor A’s phone show that they did inform Neighbor B of the breach, and Neighbor B agreed to move the items. After Neighbor A had the property lines established, they installed a security camera to observe the area. The camera was low quality, and not placed in a great spot for visibility. Neighbor A produced videos taken from that camera that show someone crossing the property line several days after the text exchange was had. Digital forensics experts were able to enhance the video to show that the individual was, in fact, Neighbor B. 

Neighbor B alleges that there was a conversation after the uncovered text messages, in which Neighbor A said it was okay to cross the property lines. Digital forensics experts then perform a physical extraction of Neighbor A’s phone and discover a deleted text conversation from after the first text conversation was held. This conversation potentially alluded to a conversation had outside of text that could have granted leniency to the property lines. However, there was no mention of additional items being allowed, and the conversation was vague in nature.

Overall, video enhancement could be the crucial turning point of this case, like it is so many others.