A 101-year-old Gold Coast woman says she became embroiled in a neighborhood dispute after building a new fence, leading to a bitter boundary dispute that she fears she cannot afford to repair.
Nala, a great-great-great-grandmother who has lived in her home for about 60 years, says she agreed to a new fence for privacy and security, but never agreed to it being built in her neighbor’s yard rather than on the boundary line.
MORE NEWS
Billy Slater’s wild new life after footy
Tradie cracks the real estate market with a $3,000 side hustle
“Un-Australian”: Parking law divides neighbors
“I may be 101, but I know what side of the fence I’m on,” she told A Current Affair.
For Nala, it’s not just about a fence line.
It’s the strip of land that remains between the old border and the new structure, a leftover piece of land that she says was never part of the deal and that she doesn’t want.
The centenarian said she was happy to agree when her neighbor offered to replace the aging fence at her own expense, describing it as a practical solution to improve privacy and security between the two homes.
![](data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 1280 720"%3E%3C/svg%3E)
101-year-old Nala takes a stand as a backyard fence is violently blown up. Image: A Current Affair
Her late husband built the original low wire fence in 1966, and although it had clearly seen better days, Nala said it still stands and serves its purpose.
“It was old, but it was still standing. It’s done a good job all these years,” she said.
But what was intended to be a simple, neighborly agreement has instead erupted into a protracted dispute over where the new fence should have gone and what was left behind when it didn’t.
Because of mobility issues, she was unable to come down and inspect the work herself while it was being done, Nala said.
Nala says she is not impressed with the location of the new fence. Image: Current Affairs
Nala says she only ever approved building the fence on the boundary line, not within the neighboring block.
“It should be placed on the fence line. I gave him permission, not in his own yard,” she said.
At the heart of the dispute is the exposed concrete line of the original fence, which Nala says has now remained visible because the replacement was built away from the actual boundary.
The great-great-great grandmother says she never approved how the new fence was built. Image: A Current Affair
While some may assume that Nala gained a little more space because the fence was built slightly inside the neighbor’s property, she says that’s exactly what makes the situation worse.
“Don’t I have a right to say I don’t want your garden in mine?” she said.
“It’s not mine, it’s still his. That’s why he has to keep it, and it will never be mine, it’s his. And I don’t want it.”
The new fence replaces an iron mesh fence that Nala’s husband erected about 60 years ago. Image: A Current Affair
The dispute has now gone far beyond a disagreement about appearances.
Nala said if she wanted to properly challenge the fence’s location, she would likely have to pay a surveyor, which she said was financially out of reach.
“If I want to do something about it, I have to hire an appraiser, which costs between $1,000 and $3,000. I just can’t afford it,” she said.
What the neighbors say
In a statement to A Current Affair, the neighbors said the previous fence was “significantly aged and worn” and that the replacement fence was paid for in full by them in good faith.
They said the work was carried out with the intention of improving privacy, security and condition between the two properties.
“The new fence was deliberately constructed slightly within our property rather than directly on top of the existing concrete perimeter to avoid potential encroachment on… the property,” the statement said.
At the heart of the dispute is this remaining concrete line. Image: A Current Affair
Neighbors also said that there was a time during construction when the old fence was removed and the location of the new frame was clearly visible, and that no concerns were raised with them at that time.
They rejected claims that the remaining concrete was a “mess” or that it had been left in place to save time or money.
Instead, they said they were existing garden borders that were part of the established landscaping and garden boundaries and had been left undisturbed as it was not deemed necessary or appropriate to remove them during the fence replacement.
Why a fence fight can become a sales problem
The dispute highlights a broader issue that can rattle homeowners.
Across Australia, each state and territory has different fencing laws, but the general situation is generally the same.
Neighbors usually share the cost of a standard dividing fence and in most cases this should be on the shared boundary.
If a fence is built outside this line, this usually does not automatically change the legal title. However, this can cause practical and legal problems later on, particularly if the property is sold, as a fence is not conclusive evidence of a legal boundary and buyers, estate agents and lenders may treat a relocated fence as a possible encroachment or ownership dispute.
This may result in additional inquiries, identification questions, delays in processing, renegotiation of price, or pressure on the seller to resolve the issue before a deal can be made.
For homeowners, the safest approach is usually to confirm property boundaries, obtain an appraisal when in doubt, keep records of notices and written agreements, and seek early advice from a real estate agent or real estate attorney.
