Title: Talley v. Horn
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 53, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 14, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH REESE TALLEY, 
KRISTINA KAREN TALLEY, and 
KURT COSTELLO, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
DARREN WAYNE HORN, Sr. and 
JUDITH CELELIA TALLEY 
HORN, 
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 53, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. S22C-12-013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  June 23, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided:     August 14, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LeGROW, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendants below-appellants, Kenneth Reese Talley, Kristina 
Karen Talley,1 and Kurt Costello, filed this notice of appeal from a Superior Court 
order ejecting them from a property located in Milton, Delaware (“the Property”).  
 
1 For clarity, we use first names to refer to the Talley parties; no disrespect or familiarity is 
intended.   
2 
 
After consideration of the parties’ arguments, we affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment.  
(2) 
This ejectment matter arises from a Court of Chancery action, Talley v. 
Horn, C.A. No. 2021-0011, that we take judicial notice of and briefly summarize 
below.  In January 2021, Kenneth and Janice, with the assistance of counsel, filed a 
Court of Chancery complaint against Darren and Judith Horn, who bought the 
Property in 1989 and allowed Kenneth and Janice to live there.  Kenneth and Janice 
sought an equitable life estate in the Property through promissory or equitable 
estoppel.  During the litigation, Kenneth and Janice terminated their counsel’s 
representation.  In April 2022, Kenneth and Janice filed an interlocutory appeal in 
this Court from the Court of Chancery Master’s orders denying their requests for a 
continuance of trial.  The Court dismissed the appeal based on its lack of jurisdiction 
to consider an appeal from a Master’s rulings.2 
(3) 
A Court of Chancery Master held a two-day trial in May 2022.  On 
October 4, 2022, the Master issued her final report recommending entry of judgment 
in favor of the Horns, a declaration that Kenneth and Janice had no interest in the 
Property, and entry of an order cancelling the lis pendens Kenneth and Janice had 
filed on the Property.3  The Master found that Kenneth and Janice had “[a]t most…a 
 
2 Talley v. Horn, 2022 WL 1594527 (Del. May 19, 2022). 
3 Talley v. Horn, 2022 WL 4963256 (Del. Ch. Oct. 4, 2022). 
3 
 
permissive oral license to use to the Property” which the Horns could revoke at any 
time.4  The Master also found that Kristina and her friend Kurt Costello were 
Kenneth’s guests on the Property and therefore subject to Kenneth and Janice’s 
license to use the Property.5  The Master advised the parties that they could file 
exceptions to the report under Court of Chancery Rule 144.6  The parties did not file 
exceptions.7   
(4) 
On October 21, 2022, the Chancellor entered an order approving and 
adopting the Master’s report.  Kenneth and Janice did not file an appeal in this Court 
but submitted documents in the Court of Chancery that were returned to them, along 
with a cover letter stating that appeals had to be filed in this Court.  No appeal from 
the Court of Chancery’s final order was filed in this Court.     
(5) 
On November 7, 2022, the Horns’ counsel notified Kenneth and Janice 
that their license to use the Property was revoked.  On December 20, 2022, the Horns 
filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the ejectment of Kenneth, Kristina, and 
Costello under 10 Del. C. § 6701.8  On January 10, 2023, the Horns filed an amended 
 
4 Id. at *8. 
5 Id. 
6 Id. at *9. 
7 Kristina submitted documents on October 7, 2022 that were returned to her because she had not 
included the scanning fee.  The Register in Chancery also advised that she could return the 
documents with the fee, but that the documents would be docketed as a complaint by a non-party.   
8 Janice had not lived on the Property since 2019. 
4 
 
complaint and a motion for a rule to show cause hearing.  Kenneth moved to dismiss 
the complaint, arguing that he and Janice had occupied and paid for the Property. 
(6) 
The Superior Court held a rule to show cause hearing on February 3, 
2023.  After hearing arguments from the Horns’ counsel, Costello, Kenneth, and 
Kristina, the Superior Court concluded that the doctrine of res judicata barred the 
defendants’ claims that Kenneth had an ownership interest in the Property and 
rejected their efforts to re-litigate the Court of Chancery action.  The court granted 
ejectment, denied the Horns’ request for attorneys’ fees, and ordered the defendants 
to vacate the Property by March 17, 2023.  This appeal followed.   
(7) 
On appeal, Kenneth, Kristina, and Costello challenge the Superior 
Court’s application of res judicata and the Court of Chancery’s rulings.  They also 
contend that Kenneth is a victim of elder abuse.  Having considered the parties’ 
positions, we conclude that the Superior Court did not err in granting ejectment.  
(8) 
Res judicata bars a claim when: (i) the original court had jurisdiction 
over the subject matter and the parties; (ii) the parties to the original action were the 
same or in the privity with the parties in the instant case; (iii) the issues decided in 
the original action were the same as in the instant case; (iv) the issues in the original 
5 
 
action were decided adversely to the appellants; and (v) the decree in the original 
action was final.9  All of these criteria are satisfied here.  
(9) 
The Court of Chancery had jurisdiction over Kenneth and Janice’s 
claims that they had an ownership interest in the Property.  Kristina and Costello 
were not parties in the Court of Chancery action, but Kristina testified at trial and 
both of their defenses to ejectment are predicated on Kenneth having an ownership 
interest in the Property.   The Court of Chancery also addressed Kristina and 
Costello’s relationship to the Property—namely, that they were guests of Kenneth 
and subject to Kenneth and Janice’s revocable license to use the Property.  Whether 
Kenneth had any ownership interest in the Property was at issue in both cases and 
was decided adversely to Kenneth in the Court of Chancery action.  The Court of 
Chancery’s judgment that Kenneth and Janice had no interest in the Property, except 
at most an oral license to use the Property that could be revoked by the Horns at any 
time, is final.  By the time of the ejectment action, the time to appeal the Court of 
Chancery’s rulings had long passed and the defendants could not relitigate whether 
Kenneth had an ownership interest in the Property entitling him to remain there with 
Kristina and Costello.    
 
9 Dover Historical Soc’y, Inc. v. City of Dover Planning Comm’n, 902 A.2d 1084, 1092 (Del. 
2006). 
6 
 
(10) Finally, the defendants’ conclusory allegations of elder abuse, which 
are mostly based on the previously adjudicated and rejected premise that Kenneth 
has an ownership interest in the Property, do not constitute a defense to the ejectment 
action.  Given the defendants’ failure to establish any legal basis for their continued 
occupation of the Property, the Superior Court did not err in granting ejectment.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice