Tumulty v. Schreppler
132 A.3d 4, 2015 WL 1478191, 2015 Del. Ch. LEXIS 65 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Adverse possession in Delaware requires open, notorious, hostile, exclusive, actual, and continuous possession for 20 years, and substantial recreational use of undeveloped, secluded land can satisfy these requirements, with the nature of possession determined by the character of the land.
Facts:
- On or about June 1, 1971, James Tumulty acquired approximately 30 acres of land in Dagsboro Hundred, Sussex County, which passed to the Tumulty Plaintiffs under Delaware’s intestacy laws after his death on January 16, 1985.
- In May or June 1985, James Richard Schreppler discovered land near Martin Mill Pond and, after checking local tax records which listed Parcel 38 (including the disputed property) as 'owner unknown,' decided to claim it.
- By 1988, Schreppler established a second continuous campsite on the disputed Property (a wooded, marshy, landlocked parcel) and began visiting it roughly weekly for camping, squirrel and deer hunting, and fishing, also installing ladder stands and duck blinds.
- On November 3, 1990, Schreppler had a quitclaim deed prepared and recorded, purporting to convey Parcel 38 to him, and on November 7, 1990, he assumed property tax responsibility for the Property and paid back taxes to 1977.
- On April 1, 1992, Patricia Tumulty conveyed 21 acres of the original Tumulty land to Lakeview Estates, Inc., based on a survey (the '1990 Land Tech Survey') that mistakenly excluded the 14.74-acre disputed Property.
- After 1992, Schreppler continued to visit the Property about 20 times annually for day-camping, hunting, fishing, and hiking, maintaining trails and occasionally posting 'No Trespassing' signs.
- In 2005, a dispute arose between Schreppler and the Collinses (neighboring landowners) over the installation of a stormwater-outfall pipe on an adjacent parcel, which prompted the Collinses to research title and discover that the Tumultys held legal title to the disputed Property.
- In November 2008, Donald Collins, Jr. and a surveyor successfully had the property taxes for the disputed Property reassessed from Schreppler to Patricia Tumulty without informing Schreppler or the Tumultys proactively ordering or paying for the survey.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Patricia Tumulty and her five children) filed their initial complaint against James Richard Schreppler and William B. and Susan M. Wilgus on November 3, 2010, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- Defendant Schreppler answered the complaint on March 11, 2011, and asserted a counterclaim for adverse possession of the Property.
- Plaintiffs filed the operative (amended) complaint on October 25, 2013.
- Defendant Schreppler again answered and counterclaimed for adverse possession (the 'Answer and Counterclaims').
- The Delaware Court of Chancery presided over a three-day trial from March 11-13, 2014.
- During trial, the parties agreed to dismiss the Wilguses as defendants, and the Court entered a formal stipulation of dismissal in that regard on June 20, 2014.
- After extensive post-trial briefing, the Court heard final argument on December 18, 2014.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did James Richard Schreppler establish title to the disputed 14.74-acre property through adverse possession by demonstrating open, notorious, hostile, exclusive, actual, and continuous possession for the statutory period?
Opinions:
Majority - Parsons, Vice Chancellor
Yes, James Richard Schreppler acquired title to the disputed property through adverse possession. The court found that Schreppler satisfied all elements of adverse possession by a preponderance of the evidence. His possession became continuous and actual in 1988 when he established a permanent campsite on the property and began weekly recreational use, including hunting, fishing, and camping, which was more frequent than typical use by nearby landowners of their own property. This use, coupled with making trails and posting signs, was deemed 'open and notorious' given the secluded, wooded, and landlocked nature of the land, consistent with how an owner of similar land would use it. The recording of a straw deed in 1990 and consistent payment of property taxes further demonstrated his hostile and exclusive claim of ownership. The court rejected the Plaintiffs' arguments that recreational use was legally insufficient for adverse possession under Delaware law, citing prior precedent, and found that Schreppler's initial inability to precisely locate the eastern boundary until 1992 was not fatal to his claim because he relied on tax map boundaries and no boundary disputes arose with other neighbors for the property itself. Plaintiffs' limited, vague, and unsubstantiated visits to the property's environs did not constitute an ouster or interruption of Schreppler's possession, nor did the administrative tax reassessment initiated by third parties. Therefore, Schreppler's 20-year period of adverse possession, starting in 1988, was complete by the time Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in November 2010.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Delaware's adverse possession standard for undeveloped, remote land, affirming that substantial recreational use, such as hunting, fishing, and camping, can meet the 'actual' and 'open and notorious' requirements. It emphasizes that the character of the possession must be commensurate with the character and typical uses of the land. The ruling serves as a strong reminder to record title holders of their responsibility to actively monitor and protect their property, even if secluded, to prevent claims of adverse possession. It also highlights that purely administrative actions by third parties, such as a tax reassessment, do not interrupt an adverse possessor's claim unless accompanied by a physical ouster by the true owner.
