>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Authorities say 38-year-old Cody Balmer carried out an arson attack on the governor’s mansion in April 2025. Balmer allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail into the residence while the governor and his family were inside observing the first night of Passover. Investigators later said the suspect told police his actions were motivated by Israel’s war with Hamas. Balmer eventually pleaded guilty and received a prison sentence of 25 to 50 years.
Following the attack, state officials reportedly worked to strengthen security measures around locations associated with the governor, including the Shapiros’ private residence.
According to the Mocks’ lawsuit, the Shapiros believed for years that the strip of land belonged to them. However, a review conducted as part of the 2025 security planning process allegedly revealed that the land was actually deeded to the neighboring property owned by the Mocks.
Once that discovery was made, the complaint claims the governor and his wife offered to purchase the land so their fence project could move forward. But negotiations between the two families eventually broke down when they could not agree on a price for the parcel.
The Mocks say they then attempted to compromise by offering to lease the land to the Shapiros instead of selling it outright. The governor and first lady initially agreed to that arrangement, the lawsuit claims.
However, the neighbors allege the situation soon took a different turn. According to the complaint, the Shapiros later pursued what it describes as “alternative actions” to obtain the property by claiming ownership through Pennsylvania’s adverse possession law.
The lawsuit details a series of incidents that the Mocks say demonstrate the governor’s efforts to assert control over the land. They claim the Shapiros planted large trees on the disputed area, threatened to remove healthy trees that were already there, and even flew a drone over the property.
In another allegation, the Mocks say workers they hired—including an arborist and a surveyor—were chased away from the property during the dispute.
Perhaps most concerning, according to the lawsuit, was the alleged involvement of state law enforcement. The Mocks claim that the governor directed the Pennsylvania State Police to patrol the contested land, despite the fact that the parcel was owned by them.
When the Mocks attempted to access the area themselves, state troopers allegedly told them the land was “disputed” and instructed them to leave immediately.
The lawsuit also claims the neighbors were forced to halt construction of their own fence after contractors were warned they could not enter what police described as a “security zone” surrounding the disputed property line. The Mocks say they were effectively barred from accessing their own land unless the Shapiros gave permission.
For their part, the governor and first lady strongly deny the accusations. They have filed a countersuit arguing that they legally obtained ownership of the property through adverse possession.
Under Pennsylvania law, adverse possession allows someone to claim ownership of land if they have continuously occupied and maintained it for at least 21 years.
In their legal filing, the Shapiros argue that their possession of the disputed strip dates back to May 2003, when they first moved into the home. They claim that a fence separating the two properties existed before they purchased the house and that both households historically treated that fence line as the actual boundary.
The countersuit further states that the Shapiros regularly maintained the area by “mowing, landscaping, installing improvements, and excluding others.”
They also argue that the Mocks—who bought their property in 2017—never previously occupied or controlled the land and did not challenge the boundary until October 2025, when the governor informed them he believed the land belonged to him.
Meanwhile, the governor’s office has suggested the lawsuit may have political motivations as he prepares for reelection.
A spokesperson for Shapiro told the Philadelphia Inquirer: “The Governor looks forward to a swift resolution and will not be bullied by anyone trying to score cheap political points, especially at the expense of his family’s safety and wellbeing.”
But the attorney representing the Mocks, Walter Zimolong, rejected that characterization.
Speaking to The Washington Post, Zimolong said the legal action is “not a political action or “stunt”, it’s a straightforward defense of the property rights of two innocent people.”
As of now, attorneys for both sides have declined to provide additional comment, leaving the dispute likely headed toward a prolonged legal battle over property rights, political power, and the limits of state authority.
