132 A.3d 4
Del. Ch.2015Background
- Suit concerns a landlocked, wooded parcel in Sussex County; one party claims adverse possession against the Tumultys’ land.
- Schreppler discovered the land as “owner unknown” in 1985, began using it, and created campsites and improvements into the 1990s.
- He recorded a straw deed in 1990, began paying taxes, and asserted ownership via adverse possession against the Tumultys.
- Development activity nearby (Lakewood Estates/Deere Country) occurred in the 1990s, affecting boundaries and visibility of ownership.
- Tumultys later sought declaratory relief and to clear title; Schreppler counterclaimed for adverse possession.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on November 3, 2010; court ultimately held in favor of Schreppler on adverse possession and dismissed related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Tumultys have standing to pursue title? | Tumultys own or represent the lands and can sue to quiet title. | Only Lakeview Estates held the interest; Tumultys lack standing. | Tumultys have standing to pursue claims. |
| Does collateral estoppel bar Schreppler’s adverse possession claim? | ABC Woodlands ruling precludes claims here. | ABC Woodlands involved different lands; no issue brought here was decided there. | Collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Has Schreppler satisfied the elements of adverse possession (open/notorious, hostile/adverse, exclusive, actual possession, continuous for 20 years)? | Schreppler’s use was recreational and not sufficient for possession. | Long, open, exclusive use for decades constitutes adverse possession under Delaware law. | Schreppler satisfied all five elements; title by adverse possession is established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marvel v. Barley Mill Road Homes, 104 A.2d 908 (Del. Ch. 1954) (open/notorious use depends on land's nature; acts must show exclusive use and notice to owner)
- Lewes Trust Co. v. Grindle, 170 A.2d 280 (Del. 1961) (uninterrupted enjoyment suffices for adverse possession under proper context)
- Dickerson v. Simpson, 792 A.2d 188 (Del. 2002) (ouster and boundaries considerations in adverse possession context)
- Stellar v. David, 257 A.2d 391 (Del. Super. 1969) (usage pattern (hunting, recreation) can support adverse possession depending on land type)
- Doe v. Roe, 80 A.2d 352 (Del. Super. 1911) (nature of possession depends on property and permissible uses)