Title: Snyder v. Jehovah's Witnesses
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 408, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 2003

1The Court of Chancery issued an oral ruling following trial on June 13, 2002 and
later filed a written order dated June 25, 2002.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD & MARION SNYDER,
Plaintiffs Below-
Appellants,
v.
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES,
Defendant Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 408, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  C.A. No. 1423-K
§
§
§
Submitted: January 9, 2003
  Decided:   February 28, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 28th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
(1)
The plaintiffs-appellants, Richard and Marion Snyder, filed an
appeal from the order of the Court of Chancery denying their request for an
easement through property owned by defendant-appellee Jehovah’s Witnesses.1
Jehovah’s Witnesses has moved to affirm the judgment of the Court of
-2-
Chancery on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the Snyders’ opening
brief that the appeal is without merit.  We AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE
IN PART.  
(2)
For a number of years the Snyders have owned a parcel of
approximately 25 acres of real property in the Town of Smyrna, Kent County,
Delaware.  In December 1989, the Snyders deeded 1.5 of their 25 acres to the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Smyrna Congregation.  The property was essentially a
gift to the congregation, although it appears that taxes and bills owed by the
Snyders to the Town of Smyrna were paid by the congregation at the time of
the transfer.  In 1991, the Jehovah’s Witnesses built a Kingdom Hall on their
property.  In their complaint filed in the Court of Chancery, the Snyders alleged
that, due to the location of the Kingdom Hall, they no longer have access to the
remainder of their acreage.  
(3)
At trial, Richard Snyder testified that, at the time the property was
transferred to the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1989, he had access to his 25 acres,
but once the Kingdom Hall was built in 1991, his access was blocked.  On cross
examination, however, Snyder admitted that, in 1991, there was access to his
property from a public street called First Avenue.  Snyder also admitted that,
in 1993, he sold a number of acres, including at least a portion of the frontage
-3-
on First Avenue that gave him access to his property, to a Delaware corporation
named Deland, Inc.  When asked if he had not in effect “landlocked [himself],”
Snyder responded, “That’s one way of looking at it.  That’s not the way I look
at it.  If you want to call it that, you can.”  Snyder also was questioned about a
2002 letter from the Town of Smyrna encouraging the Snyders to discuss with
a town representative “other options” for “more regular access” to their
property.  He admitted that he had never pursued a resolution of his problem
with the Town of Smyrna after receiving the letter in 2002 or indeed at any
time.
(4)
Charles Hopkins testified in the defendant’s case in chief that he
was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation and had served on the
building committee when the Kingdom Hall was built.  Hopkins stated that
Richard Snyder came to the site before, during and after construction and had
never voiced any objection to the location of the building.  He also stated that
a development of about 20 homes was constructed off of First Avenue several
years after the Kingdom Hall was built.  Hopkins described the development
as a cul-de-sac beginning and ending at First Avenue.
(5)
In its ruling from the bench following trial, the Court of Chancery
found that the Snyders had failed to present any evidence of an express
2Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 671, 673 (Del. 1972).
-4-
easement. The Court of Chancery further found that the Snyders had failed to
prove that their property was “landlocked,” but, to the extent that it was, it was
their own actions, including their failure to communicate with the Town of
Smyrna, that caused the problem.  We have reviewed the trial transcript in
detail and find no evidence of any error of law or abuse of discretion on the part
of the Court of Chancery in deciding this matter as it did.2 
(6)
As the Snyders correctly point out, however, the Court of
Chancery’s oral ruling regarding costs is inconsistent with its written order.
While the Court of Chancery expressly ruled following trial that the parties
would bear their own costs, its written order provides that the plaintiffs are
responsible for paying all the costs.  This matter must, therefore, be remanded
to the Court of Chancery for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of
costs.    
(7)
It is manifest on the face of the Snyders’ opening brief that, except
for the issue of costs, this appeal is without merit because the issues presented
on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial
discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
-5-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, except for that portion of
the Court of Chancery’s judgment regarding costs, the judgment of the Court
of Chancery is AFFIRMED.  That portion of the judgment related to costs is
REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Court of Chancery for
further proceedings consistent herewith.  Jurisdiction is not retained.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
      Justice