Court Opinion

ID: 9368262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 16:04:27.501501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.529966
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE

 BURTON EVAN BANKS and              )
 DAVID MICHAEL BARRETT,             )     CA NO: S21C-11-016 CAK
 Trustees of the Burton Evan        )
 Banks Revokable Living Trust,      )     NON-ARBITRATION CASE
                                    )
             Plaintiffs/            )
             Counter Defendants,    )
                                    )
        v.                          )
                                    )
 MELISSA R. SCHROCK,                )
                                    )
             Defendant/             )
             Counter Plaintiff.     )

                        Submitted: December 20, 2022
                          Decided: February 2, 2023

                MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Paul G. Enterline, Esquire, 113 S. Race Street, P.O. Box 826, Georgetown, DE
19947, Attorney for Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants.

Melissa R. Schrock, P.O. Box 249, Ocean View, DE 19979, Pro Se, Defendant/
Counter Plaintiff.

KARSNITZ, R.J.
                          DECISION AFTER TRIAL

                     I.    FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 A. The Parties and Record Title

      The parties have stipulated that Burton Evan Banks and David Michael

Barrett, as Trustees of the Burton Evan Banks Revokable Living Trust (“Plaintiffs”)

are the title owners of record of tax map parcel number 1-34-12.00-1959.00, also

known as lot number two (2), in the subdivision known as Holly Park, in Ocean

View, Delaware 19970 (the “Property”). The Property was originally owned by

Ralph Banks Sr. (“Banks”), who died on May 5, 2004. His son Burton Evan Banks

inherited the Property from his father on April 4, 2005, and he deeded the Property

to himself and his co-trustee, David Michael Barrett, on September 21, 2016, as

Trustees of the Burton Evan Banks Revokable Living Trust.

      The parties have further stipulated that Melissa R. Schrock (“Defendant”) is

the title owner of record of tax map parcel number 1-34-12.00-1958.00, also known

as lot number one (1), in the subdivision known as Holly Park, with an address of

36497 Lisa Avenue, Ocean View, Delaware 19970 (“Lot 1”). On June 18, 2001,

Banks sold Lot 1 to Susan Hicks (“Hicks”), Defendant’s mother. On January 29,

2016, Hicks deeded an interest in Lot 1 to Defendant. Hicks subsequently died.

                                         2
 B. Lot 1 and the Property

      Lot 1 adjoins the Property, and is improved by Defendant’s home and a shed.

The Property is an unimproved wooded lot. Leaf Lane runs adjacent to Lot 1 and

the Property. Leaf Lane is a plotted road in the subdivision plan of Holly Park, but

it has never been constructed. The area contained by Leaf Lane is an empty field

next to Lot 1, and a w o o d e d a r e a next to the Property. The Property is entirely

surrounded by mature, densely foliated woodlands. The Property is bounded on its

western side by a drainage ditch.

 C. The Adverse Possession Timeline

      The key dates in this case for purposes of the twenty-year adverse possession

period are as follows. On June 18, 2001, Banks sold Lot 1 to Hicks. Banks died on

May 5, 2004, and on April 4, 2005, one of his sons, Burton Evan Banks, acquired

record title to the Property through inheritance from his father. On January 29, 2016,

Defendant acquired sole record title to Lot 1. On September 21, 2016, Burton Evan

Banks deeded the Property to himself and his co-trustee, David Michael Barrett, as

Trustees of the Burton Evan Banks Revokable Living Trust.

     Plaintiffs placed the Property on the market in 2021. In preparation for the

sale, the prospective buyer had a survey of the Property prepared which revealed the

existence of two fenced-in enclosures, one a goat enclosure created by Defendant,

                                           3
and another enclosure created by a neighbor.1 When Defendant was approached by

Ralph Banks, Jr., the brother of Burton Evan Banks, in October, 2021, about her

fenced-in goat enclosure on the Property, she stated that she would need a reasonable

amount of time to procure a survey to verify the boundary line because she believed that

the fence was inside the boundary line and not on the Property. However, Defendant

took no subsequent action to remove this encroachment.

                             II.    PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Ejectment against Defendant on November

15, 2021. Defendant filed her Response on December 13, 20201, and then filed a

Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim for Adverse Possession on March 23,

2022. Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion, and I granted it on April 13, 2022.

Plaintiffs filed their Reply to the Counterclaim on April 15, 2022. The parties

conducted discovery. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on September

28, 2022, and Defendant filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (on the

adverse possession claim) on October 17, 2022. On October 19, 2022, I received a

letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting that Defendant’s Cross Motion for

Summary Judgement be treated as an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, and that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment be treated as

1
 The second enclosure, adjacent to the lands of Robert J. Fehre, Jr., was removed pursuant to the
settlement of a separate lawsuit, Banks v. Fehre, CA No: S21C-11-013 CAK.

                                                4
Plaintiffs’ Answer or Reply to Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgement.

Defendant did not object. I denied the Motions for Summary Judgment orally. The

parties submitted a Pretrial Stipulation on November 2, 2022, which I signed on

November 7, 2022. The matter was tried before me on December 7. 2022, and I

visited the Property for a visual inspection on December 8, 2022. I asked the parties

to submit their closing arguments in writing, which they both did on December 20,

2022.

        This is my decision after trial. Because by a preponderance of the evidence I

find open and notorious, hostile, and adverse, and exclusive use of the Property by

Defendant, and actual and continuous possession of the Property by Defendant, for

the twenty-year statutory adverse possession period,2 and finding no assertion of

ownership or control by Plaintiffs during that period, I quiet title to the Property in

Defendant. I also deny Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Ejectment. My reasoning is

explained below.

                           III.   STANDARD OF PROOF

        Delaware's adverse possession statute3 does not prescribe a standard of proof.

On several earlier occasions, the Court of Chancery had indicated that the standard

is, or might be, clear and convincing evidence.4 Delaware law requires proof of an

2
  10 Del. C. § 7901.
3
  10 Del. C. §§ 7901-7904.
4
   See, e.g, Lowry v. Wright, 2006 WL 1586371 (Del. Ch. June 5, 2006); Acierno v.
Goldstein, 2005 WL 3111993 (Del. Ch. Nov. 16, 2005); Johnson v. Bell, 2003 WL 23021932

                                           5
easement by prescription by clear and convincing evidence. 5 However, clear

precedent of the Delaware Supreme Court6 and subsequent Court of Chancery cases7

require application of the normal evidentiary standard of preponderance of the

evidence to adverse possession cases. Although it might seem incongruous to require

proof of a prescriptive easement by clear and convincing evidence, while only

requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence to work a forfeiture of title by

adverse possession, Phillips v. State and its Chancery Court progeny like Ayers v.

Pave It remain controlling Delaware law. As such, I will apply the preponderance of

the evidence standard to Defendant’s claim that she has acquired title to the Property

by adverse possession. I need not determine whether Defendant satisfies the higher

clear and convincing standard.

       Defendant initially bears the burden of proving adverse possession by a

preponderance of the evidence. If she carries that burden, the burden of proof then

shifts to Plaintiffs to establish that the possession or use was permissive.8

                               IV.    THE EVIDENCE

       The trial of this case elicited widely divergent testimony and other evidence

(Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2003); Miller v. Steele, 2003 WL 1919332 (Del. Ch. Apr. 11, 2003).
5
  Lickle v. Diver, Inc., 238 A.2d 326, 329 (Del.1968); Cartanza v. LeBeau, 2006 WL 903541 (Del.
Ch. Apr. 3, 2006).
6
  Phillips v. State ex. rel. Dep't of Natural Res., 449 A.2d 250, 255 (Del.1982).
7
  Ayers v. Pave It, LLC, 2006 WL 2052377, at *2 (Del. Ch. July 11, 2006); Dickerson v.
Simpson, 792 A.2d 188 (Del. 2002); Edwards v. Estate of Muller, 1993 WL 489381 (Del. Ch. Oct.
18, 1993); Cox v. Lakshman, 1989 WL 34984 (Del. Ch. Apr. 13, 1989).
8
  David v. Steller, 269 A.2d 203, 204 (Del. 1970).

                                               6
from Plaintiffs and Defendant, and thus calls on me as the trier of fact to weigh the

parties’ credibility. A complicating factor, as discussed above, is that Burton Evan

Banks did not acquire record title until 2005, and Defendant and Plaintiffs did not

acquire record title to Lot 1 and the Property, respectively, until 2016. Thus, a

considerable portion of the testimony and other evidence from both parties does not

relate to time periods when they were in ownership, but rather to actions of their

predecessors in interest (Banks and Hicks), who are both deceased. Therefore, we

have no direct evidence from these predecessors of the use of the Property, but only

the testimony of their successors and the relatively few pieces of physical evidence

that are available. 9 During the early years of the adverse possession timeline,

Defendant was a minor living with the owner, Hicks, and her family on Lot 1. Only

in later years did she raise her own children there and, as an adult owner in 2016,

continue to use the Property. During the early years of the adverse possession

timeline, Burton Evan Banks had not yet inherited the Property from his father, and

only occasionally visited the Property. After Plaintiffs acquired the Property in 2016,

they only made occasional “drive by” visits to the Property.

    A. Defendant

       Defendant, having the burden of proof on her Counterclaim on the adverse

possession issue, presented her case first. She testified that her family lived about a

9
 There is no evidence of record of any adversity between the original owners. The record does
show that there was an ongoing business relationship between them, because Banks financed the
sale of Lot 1 to Hicks with a purchase money mortgage that was satisfied in July 2002.

                                              7
mile from L o t 1 10 w h e n her mother, Hicks, purchased Lot 1 in June, 2001.11

Defendant was on summer vacation from school during the summer of June 2001 to

August 2001, and her parents had a large storage shed delivered and placed on Lot

1 before their house was built, because it was easier to place the shed on Lot

1without a house in the way.12

       Because Defendant was on vacation from school during June 2001 to August

2001, she and her parents visited Lot 1 frequently and she helped her parents

assemble and install a chain link fence and a dog kennel on the Property, and cleared

brush and limbs up to the fence line.13 This fenced-in area has also changed location

slightly over time and has been used for chickens in 2004,14 and when I visited the

Property on December 8, 2022, the fenced-in area, which had been extended in

2015,15 was being used for goats.

       In the summer of 2001, Defendant and her parents also moved building

materials, including fencing and lumber, yard maintenance equipment, including a

riding lawn mower and a rotor-tiller, and a table saw on to the Property for storage.16

       Once the shed was placed on Lot 1, the fencing was installed and other outside

10
   Transcript of Bench Trial 52:6, Dkt. No. 38 [hereinafter Trial Tr.].
11
    Trial Tr. 51:13-15.
12
    Id. 51:20-23, 52:1-2.
13
    Id. 51:15-20.
14
   Id. 75:1-4.
15
   Id. 75:15-16.
16
   Id. 52:3-14.

                                                  8
items were moved to the Property, Defendant’s family placed a mobile home with a

cinderblock foundation on the Property in August of 2001. The Defendant’s house

was occupied the first week of September, 2001.17

       Defendant testified that, when her family began using the Property in June of

2001, there was a sawmill present approximately 15 feet behind the shed. 18 The

sawmill was old and rusty, covered in a worn tarp, and not in usable condition.19

Defendant’s father, Jack Hicks, replaced the tarp and covered it with a new one in

the summer of 2001, but otherwise never used the sawmill.20 From June of 2001

to the present, no one other than Jack Hicks – including Plaintiffs -- ever

demonstrated ownership of the sawmill.21 Defendant never saw or heard anyone

operate the sawmill, or any evidence of its use such as sawdust, cut boards, cut trees,

or disturbed ground. According to Defendant, no one ever drove on the Property or

used any part of it as a roadway, and Defendant never saw any evidence of anyone

driving on the Property such as tire tracks. Jack Hicks sold the sawmill on the online

classified website Craigslist in May of 2012 with Defendant’s assistance.22 No one

came looking for the sawmill, inquired about its whereabouts, or otherwise dealt

17
   Id. 53:5-6.
18
   Id. 53:20-23.
19
   Id. 55:11-19, 56:1-2.
20
   Id. 57:5-7.
21
   Id. 57:11-13.
22
   Id. 57:13-14.

                                           9
with the sawmill, except Jack Hicks.23 When I visited the Property on December 8,

2022, the sawmill itself was gone, and I was informed that the wooden beams on

which the sawmill had once rested were incorporated into the goat houses, which I

saw.

          Defendant and two witnesses testified about the activities conducted in the

back yard. The exact location of these activities in relation to the boundary line

between the Property and Lot 1 is not established in the record. Her brother testified

to having a pull-up bar between the shed on Lot 1 and the sawmill, which could have

been on either on Lot 1 or on the Property.24 Her childhood friend simply testified

that they frequently played in the “back yard” portion of the Property, without

specifying what portion of the Property that was.25

            On the Property beyond the northeast corner of the present fence line,

Defendant began to place old household items to create a children’s play area or

“fort” starting in the summer of 2001, and she introduced photographs of her young

children playing there.26 In my site visit, I saw this play area, in a state of disrepair.

          In both her own direct testimony and on cross examination by counsel for

Plaintiffs, Defendant testified that she had given a neighbor permission to use a

23
     Id. 63:19-23.
24
   Id. 90:1-98:19.
25
   Id. 84:8-88:19.
26
   Id. 59:12-23.

                                            10
portion of the Property for a dog kennel, which he then fenced in.27 At that time she

assumed she owned the portion of the Property which he fenced in.28 As discussed

above, the neighbor, who has since died, removed this fence in settlement of a

separate ejectment action by Plaintiffs.29 Defendant argues that this action indicates

she believed and acted as if the Property were hers. When I questioned Defendant in

court, she testified that she never spoke to her parents and obtained an understanding

of where the boundary line between Lot ! and the Property was located. She thought

Lot 1 was where her house was, and the Property was her back yard that extended

to Lots 3 and 4.30

       Defendant testified that no one besides her family and guests have ever been

present on the Property since June of 2001, nor has there been any evidence of the

use of the Property by anyone else since June of 200l. 31 Her family has

continuously chopped wood for fires, trimmed trees, cut and removed fallen trees,

mowed and cleared brush, cut and used walking trails throughout the entire Property,

maintained fencing and houses for animals (including a dog, chickens, and goats),

used the Property for recreation, as well as other activities consistent with normal

27
   Id. 41:7-16.
28
   Id.
29
   The second enclosure, adjacent to the lands of Robert J. Fehre, Jr., was removed pursuant to the
settlement of a separate lawsuit, Banks v. Fehre, CA No: S21C-11-013 CAK
30
   Trial Tr. 80-16-81-4.
31
   Id. 64:5-8.

                                                 11
use of a back yard continuously from the summer of 2001 until the present.32

        Defendant testified repeatedly that no one has ever accessed the Property, or

asked about it, during the twenty-year period beginning in 2001.33

     B. Plaintiffs

        Ralph Banks, Jr. (“Banks Jr.”), Banks’ son and the executor of his estate,

testified that Banks owned a portable sawmill, which was stored under a tarp on

wooden beams, which was located on the Property behind Defendant’s house, close

to the boundary line with Lot 1, and clearly visible from Lot 1. 34 He identified the

sawmill and with a tarp on top of it in an aerial photograph on the Property.35 The

sawmill was accessed by the undeveloped Leaf Avenue and there was a worn path

through the trees on the Property from Leaf Lane to the site of the sawmill.36 On my

site visit on December 8, 2022, I could make out vestiges of this path. Although the

record does not establish exactly where the sawmill was located in relation to the

boundary line, it is undisputed by the parties that the location of the sawmill did not

change. Banks Jr. testified that he and Banks regularly used the sawmill from 2001

up until a month or two before Banks’ death on May 5, 2004.37 They visited the

32
   Id. 61:16-19.
33
   Id. 66:2-5.
34
   Id. 118:21-22.
35
   Id. 128:2-12.
36
   Id. 128:13-129:12.
37
   Id. 117:5-8

                                           12
Property frequently on weekends in his pickup truck with chainsaws and culled out

trees and gathered firewood.38 Banks Jr. testified in response to my questions in court

that these sessions lasted several hours and were quite noisy, and that he would have

expected Defendant and her family to hear them.39 Banks, Jr. testified that from 2001

until 2004, when he and Banks visited the sawmill on the Property, they never saw

Defendant or her family, 40 a chain link fence enclosing a dog shelter on the

Property,41 or the play area on the Property.42

       Banks Jr. testified that, after his father’s death in 2004, he continued to visit

the sawmill on the Property at least monthly, and on those visits he never saw a chain

link fence or any enclosed livestock or pets on the Property.43 He mowed a portion

of the Property every two weeks in season and never saw a dog kennel or a goat

enclosure.44 In fact, Defendant had asked Banks Jr. if she could let her horses graze

on the Property; he had said no.45 Although he could not get the sawmill to function,

he regularly checked on the sawmill and some stacks of firewood on the Property.46

He was surprised by the eventual disappearance of the sawmill in 2012 and did not

38
   Id. 117:15-18.
39
   Id. 151:1-17.
40
   Id. 151:18-22.
41
   Id. 121:3-12.
42
   Id. 121:13-18.
43
   Id. 122:10-21.
44
   Id. 134:14-23.
45
   Id. 124.20-125.10.
46
   Id. 121:23-122:13.

                                           13
know who had taken it.47

       Banks Jr. testified on direct examination that his family never cleared fallen

trees from the Property after storms,48 and on cross examination he testified that his

family had never posted no trespassing signs or other indicia of ownership, or paid

anyone to maintain the Property or clean up fallen or storm damaged trees.49

       David Michael Barrett, one of the Plaintiffs (“Barrett”). testified that he and

his spouse, Burton Banks, were both present on the Property for 30 – 35 minutes

about one week before Christmas in 2001, when Banks showed them his new

sawmill in operation.50 There was a worn path from Leaf Lane to the sawmill,51 and

they saw no chain link dog enclosure or play area. 52 Plaintiffs introduced three

photographs which Barrett testified he took on in December, 2001.53 The operation

of the sawmill that day was quite loud.54

       Barrett had done research and found that Banks had obtained a building permit

on September 13, 2001to build a new pole shed at his residence; he used the sawmill

for this in the fall and spring of 2001-2002.55 There was also testimony that Banks

47
   Id. 123:6-124:19.
48
   Id. 135:16-136:7.
49
   Id. 138:5-23.
50
   Id. 159:5-12.
51
   Id. 162:2-6.
52
   Id. 164:7-16.
53
   Id. 16511-166:18.
54
   Id. 168:22-23.
55
   Id. 174:16-176:4.

                                            14
was using the sawmill to make a maple table for a friend.56

       Barrett testified that after 20005 he and his spouse Burton Banks made annual

“drive by” visits to the Property over the years when they were visiting Rehoboth

Beach, Delaware from their home in Atlanta, Georgia, primarily in the summer when

there is thick foliage.57 However, on cross examination Barrett could produce no

airline tickets, hotel reservations, or other evidence of these visits.58

       On cross examination Barrett stated that Plaintiffs had never maintained the

Property, cleaned up fallen trees, or cleared brush on the Property because they did

not believe that it was necessary for an unimproved, wooded lot, and that they had

not posted no trespassing signs or introduced themselves to any of the neighbors.59

Barrett stated that Plaintiffs never observed any activity on the Property, or any

improvements, dog pen, fences, or play area on the Property.60 The only clearing

they saw on the Property was the area around the sawmill, consistent with the prior

use of the sawmill, and a path leading from Leaf Lane to access that clearing.61

       Burton Banks testified that he had grown up on the Property and had explored

it as a child. 62 No other neighbors (other than Fehre and Defendant) had ever

56
   Id. 138:2-4.
57
   Id. 182:5-21.
58
   Id. 182:18-23.
59
   Id. 183:1-8.
60
   Id. 183:911.
61
   Id. 189:7-15.
62
   Id. 193:20-23.

                                            15
encroached on the Property.63 He corroborated Barrett’s testimony that in December

2001 he and Barrett visited the Property to observe his father Banks operate the

sawmill.64 The sawmill appeared to be new, and was very loud.65 Like Barrett, he

referred to the photos that either he or Barrett had taken of the event.66 His father

had obtained a building permit, which he introduced to build a structure on his

father’s lot variously referred to as a shed, a four-bay garage, and a pole barn.67 The

pile of logs on the Property were being used by his father for this purpose. Burton

Banks testified repeatedly on both direct and cross examination that, at all times he

had been on the Property, he never saw a dog pen, a chain link fence enclosure, a

play area, or any other structures or improvements on the Property.68 In fact, the

fence would have been right where the sawmill was located.69 The Property was

densely wooded with underbrush; the only clear area was a path from the Leaf Lane

entrance to the Property through the trees to the sawmill.70

       After his father’s died intestate on May 5, 2004, Burton Banks and his two

brothers agreed on how the three brothers would apportion his father’s subdivided

63
    Id. 220:16-18. 3
64
    Id. 194:7-196:8.
65
    Id.
66
    Id.
67
    Id. 199:7.
68
   Id. 200:16-201:1.
69
    Id. 215:1-13.
70
    Id. 200:12-14.

                                           16
lots. 71 He took the least desirable lot, which was landlocked. 72 He walked the

Property with Barrett in 2004 and 2005 to check out the Property which he was

getting.73 At this time he saw that the sawmill was still there.74 At that time, he was

concerned about a lot of trash, junk and debris that he saw on Lot 1 which would

make it more difficult for him to sell the Property. 75 On this visit Defendant’s

brother saw Burton Banks on the Property and confronted him, but he was satisfied

when Burt Banks explained who he was.76 After his father’s death, Burton Banks

confirmed that the document which stated there were no encroachments on the

Property was an appraisal – not a survey. 77 It did not locate the boundary line

between Lot 1 and the Property.78

       After the 2004 – 2005 visits, Burton Banks and Barrett only did their annual

drive-by inspections of the Property.79 He confirmed that they did not maintain the

Property, clear fallen trees, or check on the Property after storms. 80 They never

installed no trespassing signs on the Property or introduced themselves to the

neighbors as the new owners of the Property.81

71
   Id. 201:16-203:14.
72
   Id.
73
   Id.
74
   Id. 203:17.
75
   Id. 206:10-18.
76
   Id. 204:9-205:17.
77
   Id. 227:18-228:11.
78
   Id.
79
   Id. 207:19-208:18.
80
   Id. 233:12- 234:4.
81
   Id. 234:5-16.

                                           17
        In 2010, a tree from the Property fell on a neighbor’s property. The neighbor

contacted Burton Banks, had the tree removed, and was reimbursed by Burton

Banks.82 Another neighbor complained about a den of foxes in a woodpile on the

Property, which Burton Banks remedied.83

        After Banks’ death, none of his three sons wanted the sawmill. 84 When

Burton Banks discovered that the sawmill disappeared in 2012, he assumed that his

Uncle Pete – who was a lumberman – had taken it.85

        Burton Banks placed the Property on the market in 2021. In preparation for

the sale, the prospective buyer had a survey of the Property prepared which revealed

the existence of two encroachments, which caused the purchaser to back out of the

sale.86 Burton Banks testified that in September, 2021 when he visited the Property

it was overgrown and he could not see the encroachments, but on October, 2021 the

Property had been partially cleared, leading him to believe that Defendant had only

recently cleared the Property.87

                                   V.   ANALYSIS

        There is no dispute that Plaintiffs hold record title to the Property. The only

issue is whether Defendant has acquired title to the Property by adverse

82
   Id. 209:2-210:2.
83
    Id. 211:9-14.
84
    Id. 203:17-204:8.
85
    Id.
86
    Id. 219:22-220:6.
87
    Id. 235:18-236:15.

                                           18
possession. To quiet title by adverse possession, Defendant must show by a

preponderance of the evidence that she used and possessed the Property, in a manner

open and notorious, exclusive, and hostile and adverse, for a continuous statutorily

prescribed twenty years. 88 In my view, Defendant has satisfied each of these

elements by a preponderance of the evidence. I address each element below.

A.      Open and Notorious Use

       “Open and notorious means that the possession must be public so that the

owner and others have notice of the possession. If possession was taken furtively or

secretly, it would not be adverse and no title possession could be acquired.”89 The

question is whether Plaintiffs and the public would be on inquiry notice that

Defendant was in possession of the Property.

       There is no evidence that Defendant and her family possessed all or part of

the Property furtively or secretly. They used the Property openly and notoriously so

that both Plaintiffs and the public at large in Ocean View, Delaware could have seen

the fencing, the animal enclosures, the children’s play area, building materials, yard

maintenance equipment, walking trails, etc.

       Yet neither Plaintiffs nor their witnesses claim they have never seen these

88
   Tumulty v. Schreppler, 132 A.3d 4, 23–24 (Del. Ch. 2015) (quoting Taraila v. Stevens, 1989
WL 110545, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 18, 1989)).
89
   Tumulty, 132 A.3d at 27 (quoting Walker v. Five N. Corp., 2007 WL 2473278, at *4 (Del. Super.
Ct. Aug. 31, 2007)) (internal quotations omitted).

                                               19
indicia of adverse ownership. In my view, the December, 2001 visit to the sawmill

or even an occasional or sporadic inspection of the Property would have revealed

Defendant’s possession of at least a portion of the Property. During my site visit on

December 8, 2022, Lot 1 and the Property appeared to be relatively small and

contiguous, and both Lot 1 and the encroachments by Defendant on the Property

were clearly visible from the Property. Yet Plaintiffs never asked Defendant about

her use and possession of the Property, or posted signs or other warnings on the

Property boundary line advising Defendant or other persons to keep off the Property,

or introduced themselves to neighbors as the new owners of the Property.

       I therefore give Defendant’s testimony and other evidence more weight than

that of Plaintiffs on this element.

 B.    Hostile and Adverse Use

       “A hostile claim goes against the claim of ownership of all others, including

the record owner.”90 This element simply requires Defendant to use the property “as

if it were [her] own, to the exclusion of all others.”91

       Defendant’s use of the Property is clearly hostile and adverse to Defendant’s

legal ownership of record, as well as others. After all, she is asking me to divest

Plaintiffs of ownership of record of some or all of their Property, a draconian result.

90
   Id. (quoting Ayers v. Pave It, LLC, 2006 WL 2052377, at *2 (Del. Ch. July 11, 2006)) (internal
quotations omitted).
91
    Id.

                                                20
She testified that she used the Property as her own, for the sole benefit of herself,

her family, and her guests, and that she so used it to the exclusion of Plaintiffs or

any others. There is no significant evidence to the contrary, other than Plaintiffs’

testimony that they never saw such use of the Property by Defendant.

          Defendant further testified that she and her family never saw or heard

Plaintiffs, their family or their guests, or others on or using the Property, including

the sawmill. Plaintiffs and their witnesses only offered evidence of the December,

2001 visit to the sawmill, their 2004-2005 walk through of the Property, and several

other visits to the Property, as well as the annual “drive bys” after 2005. There was

no evidence that Plaintiffs used the Property as their own or sought to exclude

Defendant from her use of the Property.

          I therefore give Defendant’s testimony and other evidence more weight than

that of Plaintiffs on this element.

C.        Exclusivity

          The “exclusivity” element of adverse possession requires that Defendant show

“exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his or her benefit.”92

Defendant must have acted as if she were the owner of the Property. This, however,

does not require “absolute exclusivity.” 93 The fact that others sometimes use the

92
     Id. at 26.
93
     Id.

                                            21
Property does not necessarily void the exclusivity element.

      Plaintiffs argue that the act of using the sawmill and storing it under a tarp on

large beams on the Property near the Lot 1 boundary line constituted a demonstrable,

continuous, unambiguous act of dominion, control, and ownership of the Property

and that, conversely, Defendant’s failure to remove the sawmill until 2012 is

inconsistent with any claim of her exclusive use of the Property. If the sawmill was

located on any land the Hicks family believed was theirs, there is no evidence of

record that they ever mentioned it to Banks, let alone complained about it or asked

that it be removed. Plaintiffs argue that it is implausible that, having just bought Lot

1 from Banks on which to build a house, the Hicks family would have tolerated his

leaving a piece of equipment like the sawmill on what they believed was their

property. Defendant offered no rebuttal of this argument.

      Plaintiffs and their witnesses also testified that Banks regularly used the

sawmill up until a month or two before his death on May 5, 2004. In the fall and

spring of 2001-2002, they offered to corroborate their testimony that he used the

sawmill to cut boards for a structure he was building at his residence by with a

building permit he obtained for his residence on September 13, 2001. Plaintiffs

themselves both testified that they were present about one week before Christmas in

2001, when Banks showed them the sawmill in operation on the Property, and that

they were present on the Property on other occasions as well. But Defendant testified

                                           22
that she never saw or heard these events of using the sawmill, and argues that

Plaintiffs’ testimony contradicts their responses to Interrogatories and is vague and

uncorroborated as to time.

         It is hard to believe, although possible, that Defendant and her family would

not have heard the sawmill being used. However, even if Plaintiffs were at the

sawmill on the Property in December, 2001, in 2004-2005, and at other times, in my

view this does not defeat this element of adverse possession since Defendant’s

exclusive use of the Property need not be absolute.

         I therefore give Defendant’s testimony and other evidence more weight than

that of Plaintiffs on this element.

D.       Actual Possession

       “The requirement of actual possession overlaps to a large extent with open and

notorious possession:”94

       As a general rule it will be sufficient if the land is so used by the adverse
       claimant as to apprise the community in its locality that it is in his exclusive
       use and enjoyment, and to put the owner on the inquiry as to the nature and
       extent of the invasion of his rights and this is especially true where the
       property is so situated as not to admit of permanent improvement. In such
       cases, if the possession comports with the usual management of similar
       lands by their owners, it will be sufficient.95

As discussed above with respect to the element of open and notorious possession, in

94
     Id. at 30.
95
     Marvel v. Barley Mill Rd. Homes, 104 A.2d 908, 912 (Del. Ch. 1954) (emphasis supplied).

                                                 23
my view Defendant’s use of the Property was adequate to apprise the community of

Ocean View, Delaware that the Property was in her exclusive use and enjoyment, so

as to put Plaintiffs on inquiry notice as to the nature and extent of the invasion of

their ownership rights. Defendant’s possession of the Property comported with the

usual management of back yards by owners of improved property, and was therefore

sufficient.

       I therefore give Defendant’s testimony and other evidence more weight than

that of Plaintiffs on this element.

E.     Continuity of Possession

       The remaining issue is whether the adverse possession was continuous for the

statutory period of twenty years.

       As discussed above, Plaintiffs and their witnesses testified that Banks

regularly used the sawmill up until a month or two before his death on May 5, 2004,

well within the twenty-year adverse possession period. They offered to corroborate

their testimony that in the fall and spring of 2001-2002 he used the sawmill to cut

boards for a structure he was building at his residence with a building permit he

obtained for his residence on September 13, 2001. This would also be within the

twenty-year adverse possession period. Plaintiffs themselves both testified that they

were present about one week before Christmas in 2001, when they took photographs

of Banks operating the sawmill on the Property, and that they were present on the

                                          24
Property in 2005-2005 and on other occasions within the twenty-year adverse

possession period. Plaintiffs argue that, even if this does not defeat the exclusivity

element, as discussed above, it tolls the running of the adverse possession period.

      Plaintiffs argue that the first credible evidence of adverse use of the Property

was in 2012, when the sawmill, which rested on heavy wooden beams, was disposed

of by Defendant and her father Jack Hicks and the beams were recycled into a goat

shelter, where they remain today. Even if the use of the Property by Defendant

gradually increased after 2012, argue Plaintiffs, such use does not satisfy the twenty-

year adverse possession period.

      Defendant, on the other hand, testified that she never saw or heard the use of

the sawmill, and argues that Plaintiffs’ testimony contradicts their responses to her

Interrogatories and is vague and uncorroborated as to time. I give Defendant’s

testimony and other evidence more weight than that of Plaintiffs on this element. In

my view, Defendant had proved that she and her family began their adverse use of

the Property in June, 2001, and have continued to do so until the Complaint for

Ejectment was filed and beyond.

                               ***************

      In summary, I find that Defendant has proved each element of adverse

possession by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof then shifted to

Plaintiffs to establish that the possession or use was permissive by a preponderance

                                           25
of the evidence. There is no such evidence on the record.

      The Property as I viewed it on December 8, 2022, contained trees, scrub brush

and bushes. To me there appeared to be walking paths cut out of the portion of the

Property further away from Defendant’s home on Lot 1, consistent with her claims.

Her use of the Property is consistent with its nature as it exists. Her use was much

more intense in the portion of the Property closer to her home on Lot 1. The dog pen,

chicken coop and goat enclosure are all in the area immediately behind Defendant’s

house.

      I considered whether the evidence supported adverse possession of only a

portion of the Property. Ultimately, I rejected that idea after viewing the area. Both

Lot 1 and the Property are relatively small. Cutting the Property in two would have

left a recorded lot in a position where it was likely unusable. More importantly, to

me the evidence supports Defendant’s claim that she used the entirety of the

Property. Although the use of the portion of the Property further away from

Defendant’s home on Lot 1 may have been lesser, it was consistent with the nature

of the Property.

                                III. CONCLUSION

      For the reasons discussed above, title to the Property is quieted in Defendant.

Defendant shall, at her own expense, but with review by Plaintiffs, prepare

documents of title consistent with this Opinion. The parties should submit to me a

                                          26
form of Order consistent with this Opinion.

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                              /s/ Craig A. Karsnitz

cc:   Prothonotary

                                         27