Title: Dorman v. Mitchell
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 57, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHARLES DORMAN and  GAIL 
§
DORMAN,
§ 
§
No.  57, 2004
Respondents Below,
§
Appellants,
§
Court Below–Court of 
§
Chancery of the State of 
v.
§
Delaware, in and for Sussex
§
County in C.A. No.  2221-S.
EMILY MITCHELL,
§
§
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: July 22, 2004
Decided:
November 1, 2004
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 1  day of November 2004, upon consideration of the appellants’
st
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellants, Charles and Gail Dorman, filed this appeal from
a memorandum opinion of the Court of Chancery dated January 16, 2004.  The
appellee, Clara Emily Mitchell, has filed a motion to affirm the Court of
Chancery’s judgment on the basis that it is manifest on the face of the
Dormans’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
Kaufman v.  C.L. McCabe & Sons, Inc., 603 A.2d 831, 833 (Del.  1992).
1
2
(2)
In October 2002, Mitchell brought an action to quiet title in a half-
acre of land (“the property”) that she had mistakenly conveyed to another party
in 1971.  Notwithstanding the mistaken conveyance, Mitchell continued to use
and maintain the property as if she owned it, and she continues to do so to this
day.  
(3)
After the mistaken conveyance, the property changed hands
several times and ultimately ended up in the Dormans’ names in 1993.  The
Dormans knew at the time of purchase that there were issues raised in the past
regarding the ownership and location of the property.  The Dormans, however,
did not arrange for a survey of the property, nor did they discuss the matter with
Mitchell before purchasing the property.  
(4)
By memorandum decision dated January 16, 2004, the Court of
Chancery granted summary judgment to Mitchell.  The Court denied summary
judgment to the Dormans.  
(5)
This Court reviews de novo a Court of Chancery decision granting
summary judgment.   Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue
1
Del.  Ch. R.  56(c); Burkhart v.  Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 59 (Del.  1991).  
2
To claim the property by adverse possession, Mitchell had to show that she
3
possessed the property in an open, notorious, hostile and exclusive manner for a twenty-year
period.  Cox v. Lakshman, 1989 WL 90713 (Del.  Supr.); David v. Steller, 269 A.2d 203
(Del.  1970).
See Hudak v.  Procek, 806 A.2d 140 (Del.  2002) (providing that doctrine of laches
4
bars action in equity if delay in bringing action unfairly prejudices defendant); see Burge v.
Fidelity Bond and Mortgage Co., 648 A.2d 414 (Del.  1994) (providing that doctrine of
estoppel applies when party’s conduct induces detrimental reliance).
3
of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.     
2
(6)
We have carefully considered the record and the parties’ respective
positions and find it manifest on the face of the Dormans’ opening brief that the
judgment should be affirmed on the basis of the Court of Chancery’s decision
dated January 16, 2004.  The Court of Chancery correctly concluded that there
was no genuine issue of material fact regarding any of the legal issues posed by
the parties.  This Court agrees that Mitchell established all of the necessary
elements of an adverse possession claim,  and that her legal title in the property
3
vested in 1991, two years before the Dormans came into contact with the
property.  The Court of Chancery properly rejected the Dormans’ defenses of
laches and equitable estoppel on the basis that any prejudice suffered by the
Dormans was not due to Mitchell.4
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Mitchell’s motion to affirm
is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Chief Justice