Justia Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion Summaries

A group of nonprofit associations representing non-residential property owners in New Castle County, Delaware, challenged a temporary state law enacted in response to a recent county-wide property reassessment. The reassessment, ordered by the Delaware Court of Chancery in a prior case, updated decades-old property valuations to reflect current fair market values, resulting in significant tax increases for many residential homeowners and shifting the overall tax burden toward residential properties. In reaction to public outcry, the Delaware General Assembly passed House Bill 242 (HB242), which authorized school districts in New Castle County to implement a one-year split-rate property tax system for the 2025-2026 tax year, imposing higher rates on non-residential properties and lower rates on residential ones.After the reassessment, school boards set new tax rates and issued tax warrants, and the County mailed revised tax bills. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the State, county officials, and school boards, arguing that HB242 and its implementation were unconstitutional and violated state law on several grounds, including the Uniformity Clause of the Delaware Constitution, statutory requirements for tax referenda, fair market value assessment, due process, and HB242’s own revenue neutrality provision.The Court of Chancery reviewed the plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory claims. It held that HB242’s temporary split-rate system did not violate the Uniformity Clause, as reasonable classification between residential and non-residential properties is permitted. The court found that HB242 did not constitute a retroactive personal income tax, nor did it violate due process, given the availability of post-deprivation remedies for property reclassification. Statutory claims regarding referenda, fair market value, and revenue neutrality were also rejected, as HB242’s specific provisions and timing superseded general statutory requirements. Judgment was entered for the defendants on all counts. View "Newark Property Association v. State" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the ownership of a Goldendoodle named Tucker, acquired by two individuals while they were in a romantic relationship. After their separation in May 2022, one party lost contact with Tucker and initiated legal proceedings to regain possession of the dog. Both parties claim a strong emotional bond with Tucker and present evidence regarding their respective abilities to care for him, including testimony from a veterinary behaviorist about Tucker’s anxiety and attachment.The initial legal action was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding her to be Tucker’s rightful owner. The respondent appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, where a de novo trial was held. The Court of Common Pleas determined that Tucker was jointly owned by both parties, denying the petitioner’s request for replevin. The petitioner then appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the finding of joint ownership. The parties are now estopped from relitigating the issue of joint ownership.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware reviewed the case to determine the appropriate procedure for partitioning a jointly owned companion animal. The court held that, under Delaware law, partition is the remedy for co-owners wishing to sever their interests in personal property, including pets. The court established a presumption that a value-maximizing auction is the default procedure for partitioning a companion animal, but allowed for the possibility of deviation if the equities require it, such as to prevent harm to the animal. In this case, finding no evidence that either party would harm Tucker and that both are suitable owners, the court ordered partition by private auction, appointing a trustee to oversee the process. View "Callahan v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the funding of Delaware's public schools. The plaintiffs, non-profit organizations with an interest in Delaware's schools, filed a lawsuit in 2018, alleging that the state's public schools were not providing an adequate education for students from low-income households, students with disabilities, and students whose first language is not English. They argued that one of the problems was a broken system for funding the schools, which relied on property taxes. The plaintiffs contended that the three counties in Delaware were using decades-old property valuations, which violated state law and the state constitution.The case was initially heard in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. During discovery, the plaintiffs served requests for admission to the counties, asking them to admit that their decades-old assessments resulted in a lack of uniformity in property taxes and violated state law. The counties denied these requests. At trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the counties' assessments violated state law and the state constitution. The court also found that the plaintiffs had proved the facts that were the subject of the requests for admission that the counties had denied.The plaintiffs then requested an award of expenses under Court of Chancery Rule 37(c), which allows the court to order a party to pay the expenses that another party incurred in proving a fact that should have been admitted. The court granted the plaintiffs' request, awarding them expenses of $337,224, which included attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket costs. Each county was ordered to pay a prorated share of $112,408. View "In re Delaware Public Schools Litigation" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery determined the distribution of proceeds from the sale of real property in New Castle that was first partitioned then sold and determined the parties' respective shares of the sale proceeds.Lydell Davis and Shanna Veasley purchased a home together as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Davis later moved out and filed a pro se petition for a partition of the property. The Court ordered a partition sale of the property and appointed a trustee to complete the sale. After the sale, each party sought offsets for various payments or improvements. The Court of Chancery held (1) Davis's share of the sale proceeds is decreased by $6,477, and Veasley's share is correspondingly increased by that amount; and (2) assuming that $85,456 remain in escrow and no further trustee's fees or costs are deducted, Davis was entitled to $36,251 from the escrowed sale proceeds, and Veasley was entitled to the remaining $49,205. View "In re Partition of Real Estate of Davis" on Justia Law

In this dispute over whether homeowners may park a commercial van at and on their property in Bear, Delaware, the Court of Chancery held that the van was expressly permitted and that judgment should be entered in favor of the homeowners.Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining a private open space within a development. Property within the development was subject to restrictions set forth in a declaration of restrictions and an amendment to the declaration. Defendants were accused of violating a restriction on prohibited vehicles. Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint seeking a mandatory injunction to remove Defendants' van from the property. The Court of Chancery held that judgment should be entered in Defendants' favor because the van was expressly permitted under the amendment. View "Estates of Red Lion Maintenance Corp. v. Broome" on Justia Law

In this longstanding property dispute between neighbors, the Court of Chancery held that Plaintiffs failed to establish a prescriptive easement of land owned by Defendant, and entered judgment in favor of Defendant on all counts.This dispute stemmed from the neighbors' shared drainage system and the actions of Defendants that caused drainage problems and flooding on both lots. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant that included four counts all based on Plaintiffs' prescriptive easement theory. After a trial, the Court of Chancery denied relief, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of a prescriptive easement by clear and convincing evidence. View "Jones v. Collison" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery held that this dispute with Defendant, a Delaware member corporation that governed the townhome and condominium development in which Plaintiff owned several properties, was an appropriate case for awarding expenses and that Plaintiff was entitled to $12,697, the amount he identified in his opening brief.Defendant fined Plaintiff for failing to remove a mounting bracket left on the roof after a satellite dish ordered by one of Plaintiff's tenants was left on the roof. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to invalidate the charges and sought to recover his expenses. Defendant mooted the underlying dispute by clearing Plaintiff's account of the charges. The Court of Chancery held that Defendant was entitled to his expenses under the enforcement provision of the Delaware Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. View "Bragdon v. Bayshore Property Owners Association, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery granted permanent mandatory injunctive relief sought by the Council for the Association of Unit Owners of Pelican Cove Condominium requiring Respondents, owners of Unit 7 in Pelican Cove, to comply with a six-person per unit maximum occupancy limitation located in the declaration of Pelican Cove recorded in the chain of title to the property, holding that the Council will continue to suffer some irreparable harm if a permanent injunction is not granted.Citing case law indicating that ongoing violation of a restrictive covenant may constitute irreparable harm, per se, the Court of Chancery held that other unit owners of Pelican Cove, represented by the Council, would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because Respondents' breach of the Declaration diminished other unit holders' own enjoyment of their property. Further, without injunctive relief, there was nothing to stop the occupancy of Unit 7 by more than six persons. The Court determined that the balance of the equities weighed in favor of issuing an injunction. View "Council of Association of Unit Owners of Pelican Cove Condominium v. Yeilding" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint alleging that North Shores Board of Governors, Inc. (NSBG), a Delaware not-for-profit corporation that represented the homeowners at North Shores, a residential community, had no authority under the governing covenants to charge assessments or expend funds for maintenance of any of the community's recreational facilities and improvements to the community's beach dunes, holding (1) all claims contesting the annual assessments were barred by laches; and (2) all claims contesting the dune project were barred by the clear language of the covenants and the residential community's charter. View "Abbott v. North Shores Board of Governors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the owner of a commercial property, filed suit against Defendant, a special servicer that handled the default side of loan servicing for its affiliate, after Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to purchase a loan taken out to refinance existing debt on its property in an effort to avoid default. Plaintiff sought specific performance of a pre-negotiation agreement and injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant from foreclosing on the property until good faith negotiations occur under the pre-negotiation contract. The Court of Chancery granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief, holding that each count of the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. View "Windsor I, LLC v. CWCapital Asset Management LLC" on Justia Law