A homeowner feared he'd be hundreds of pounds out of pocket after his dog destroyed a neighbour's £675 drone - but the dispute backfired spectacularly when the neighbour took him to small claims court12:17, 24 Jul 2026You can't choose your neighbours - but you can outsmart them. That's exactly what one homeowner achieved after his dog ate his neighbour's $900 (£675) drone - with the dispute ending up in court. The trouble had been brewing for months, with the homeowner claiming his neighbour repeatedly flew a drone low over his back garden to deliberately tease his dog.‌Despite asking him several times to stop, the neighbour allegedly insisted he was doing nothing wrong because the homeowner "didn't own the air" above his property. Eventually, the dog snapped. When the drone once again flew low into the garden, the dog leapt into the air, caught it and completely destroyed it. Furious, the neighbour stormed over demanding the man pay for the damaged drone there and then, claiming it had cost him $900.‌When the homeowner declined, the neighbour contacted the police, alleging he had been prevented from retrieving the drone.‌He said: "The drone was still in my yard, but my dog completely ignored it once it stopped buzzing."Worried he might face legal action for damaging the drone, the homeowner sought legal counsel. It wasn't long before those concerns materialised after the neighbour launched a claim in small claims court.Fortunately, his mother-in-law, who works as a paralegal secretary, organised a complimentary consultation with a lawyer, who apparently found the case entertaining and even proposed filing a counterclaim.‌The homeowner also reported the matter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after uncovering that his neighbour had purportedly been operating drones close to an airport, beyond visual line of sight and possibly violating regulations.When the matter went before the court, the man turned up equipped with police reports, images of his garden, footage demonstrating earlier low-altitude passes over his dog and veterinary invoices.‌His neighbour contended that the homeowner had "maliciously" placed a picnic table to enable his dog to leap high enough to intercept the drone.The man clarified the table had merely been purchased to provide somewhere for him to sit and dine outdoors. According to the homeowner, the judge remained unconvinced by the neighbour's assertions.Instead, the court determined that persistently piloting the drone near the dog had caused the creature distress and might even have led to serious harm had it ingested fragments of the damaged drone.Article continues belowRather than obtaining compensation for the destroyed drone, the neighbour was instructed to pay the homeowner just shy of $2,000 (£1,500) to reimburse veterinary care, encompassing X-rays, dental checks, sedation and medication.The judge also prohibited the neighbour from operating drones above the man's property going forward. To provide himself with additional reassurance, the homeowner has subsequently fitted trail cameras around both the front and rear of his residence.While thrilled with the result, he acknowledged there was one element that would make the conclusion even more satisfying. "The only thing that could make this better is if the FAA finds a reason to fine him or take away his drones," he said.