Van Horn v. Townsend Real Estate - Adverse Possession Case

L OREN M ITCHELL M AGISTRATE IN C HANCERY C OURT OF C HANCERY OF THE S TATE OF D ELAWARE L EONARD L. W ILLIAMS J USTICE C ENTER 500 N ORTH K ING S TREET, S UITE 11400 W ILMINGTON, DE 19801 - 3734 Date S ubmit ted: October 24, 20 26 Date D ecide d: Febr uary 27, 2026 Lacy E. Ho lly, III, Es quire Holly & Mor ton, L. P. 603 Ma in Stre et Odess a, DE 1973 0 Bria n T. Rig gin, Esquir e Parkw ay La w LL C 3171 d uPon t Park way, S uite B Middl etown, DE 19709 RE: Mich ael Kelvi n Van Hor n v. Townsen d Real Es tate, et al., C.A. No. 2024 - 0291 - LM Dear Cou nsel: In thi s prope rty di sput e betwee n Michael V an Horn and T ownse nd Real Estat e Land T rust, the fac tual bac kgro und ce nters on Micha el V an Horn ’s claim of adv e rse posse ssion. V an Hor n asserts th at h is family ha s mainta ined conti nuous, open, and adver se use of the dis puted pr oper ty dati ng bac k to the 19 40s, th ereb y meeti ng the crite ria f or ad verse posse ssion. T o wnsend Rea l Estate denies th ese claim s, ar guing that V an Hor n’ s u se of the pr oper ty was ne ither a dverse nor exc lusi ve. I n analyz ing the legal finding s, the C ourt f inds that V an Horn ’ s possessi on me ets the necessary crite ria for ad verse p ossess ion und er Delawar e l aw. As such, I find in favor of V an Horn an d vest title to the prop erty in him through adverse posses sion. This i s my F i nal R ep ort.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 2 of 27 I. F ACTUAL BACK GROUND 1 This case i nvolve s a pro perty dis pute betwee n Mic hael Ke lvin V an Hor n (“P etitio ner ”), and T o wnsend Real Estat e & Bus iness Developm ent 31 5/317 Land Tr u s t (“R esponde nt ”). 2 Petiti oner resi des at 567 W aln ut Stree t, T own send, Delaware. 3 The T rustee for the Res pond ent is C ount y Real E state & B usine ss Devel opme nt, LL C, a W yomin g Lim ited L iabili ty Comp any, mana ged by H arry Jenni ngs. 4 The dispu ted prop erty in questi on is an a pproxi matel y 50 feet by 100 fee t port ion of lan d locate d wi thin 31 5 and 317 Gr ay Str eet, T ownse nd, De laware, iden tifie d by T ax Parc el No. 25 - 001.00 - 044. 5 The evide nce ref lec ts tha t this dispu ted port ion li es dire ctly acros s W alnut S treet — a lso k nown as F ulton Str eet — from Petiti one r ’ s resid ence a t 567 W alnut/ Fulton Stree t and sits betwe en ne ighbor ing 1 The facts in this R ep ort reflect my findings based on the re cord developed at trial on September 24, 2025. I grant the evidence th e weight and credibilit y I find it deserves. Citations to the record are in the form of Doc ket Item (“D.I. ”) and ide ntified by their entry number. Citations to the trial transcript are in the form of “Tr. _.” Deposition transcript s are cited as “[Last Name] Dep. Tr. _.” The parties submitted joint exhibits numbe red 1- 26. Citations to the joi nt exhibits are in th e form of “JX.” 2 D.I. 1 at 2. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 3 of 27 proper ties histor icall y assoc iate d with member s of the V an Horn fa mily. 6 Phot ograp hs admi tted at trial depic t the di sputed a rea a s an ope n, gra ssy lo t conta ining a white gar age struc ture and bo unde d in part by fenc ing. 7 On Jul y 28, 1 959, 315 Gra y Stre et wa s transf erre d from Rolan d R. R eynol ds, Jr. t o Ralph G. Farie s, Sr. and Ral ph G. Far ies, Jr. 8 The pro perty w as owned b y the Farie s until 2 019. 9 On Nove mber 1 5, 20 19, Ralph G. Fari es, I II con veye d the p arce l to Mar k D. Far ies. 10 On that sam e da te, Ma rk D. Fa ries c onveye d the proper ty t o T o wnsend Real Es tate & B usi ness Dev elopme nt Ltd. 11 There after, by q uit c laim d eed d ated Fe bruar y 14, 2023, T ownsen d Real E sta te & Bu siness D eve lopme nt Lt d. conve yed it s intere st to T ownse nd Rea l Esta te & Busin ess De velo pment 315/ 317 Land T rust, w ith Co unty Re al Est ate & Busi ness De velo pment, L LC ser ving a s T rustee. 12 6 Tr. 13:2 4–14:21; Tr. 21: 11 –24:1. 7 JX 11. 8 JX 1. 9 T r. 47:8–50:10. 10 JX 2. 11 JX 3. 12 JX 4.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 4 of 27 On Mar ch 25, 2 014, P etitio ner pur chase d 567 Fu lton fr om his g randm other’ s estate. 13 The pr opert y was prev ious ly owne d by his gr andm other, Harrie t Anna Van Horn, who owned th e proper ty since 19 42. 14 T he P etiti oner’ s gra ndpar ents began to use the dis puted a rea some time af ter they purc hase d the ir pro perty. 15 Pet itione r’s grandf ather erecte d a gara ge wher e he parked his vehicle a nd also erected a fence. 16 After Malvin Va n Horn passe d away, Harri et cont inued t o use the garage to pa rk he r vehic le. 17 Fami ly mem bers s ubseq uentl y rep laced the orig ina l gara ge an d also maint aine d the di spute d proper ty w ith lan dsca ping an d snow r emo val. 18 When P etit ioner p urcha sed t he prope rty in 201 4, h e be lieved the dispute d port ion of l and acr os s the str eet wa s his, and co ntin ued to tr eat i t as his own in a 13 JX 24 14 The property was acquired by Malvin and H arriet V an Horn i n 1942. JX 6. After Malvin V an Horn died in 1967, the property was he ld by Harriet V an Horn. J X 7. 15 Petitioner testified that he believed his gra ndparents used t he disputed property si nce they purchased the ir property at 567 W alnut Street in 1942 b ut could not definitively confirm this because it predates his birth. Tr. 94:2–95:9; T r. 122:13 –123:21. The earliest Petitioner observing t he dispute d property being used was when he was s ix years ol d, around 1965 or 1966. T r. 34: 6 –23; T r. 50: 14 –19. T e rry V an Ho rn, who is older than Petitioner, has rec ollections of the dis puted area being used by t heir grandparents as early as 1950 or 1951. T r. 1 22:13–123:21; T r. 125: 13–126:4. 16 T r. 105:2–106:2; Tr. 127:9–24. 17 T r. 107:21–108:13. 18 See T r. 3 5:1 1–41:4; T r.135:12–138:3; see V an Horn, Mark Dep. T r. 19:16 –20:6; Va n Horn, T erry Dep. T r. 14:21–19:6.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 5 of 27 simi lar way t hat his g randp arent s used t he dis puted la nd. 19 Petitione r test ified tha t with help f rom hi s brot her, he con structe d the exis ting wh ite gara ge a round the same locat ion dur ing his g randp arent s’ own ership of the adja cent W alnu t/Fult on Stree t proper ty. 20 At som e poi nt af ter acq uiri ng the prop erty in 2 014, Petition er’s w i fe was approa ched by Mr. Jennin gs who assert ed he had a deed to t he dis pute d land. 21 Afte r this e ncoun ter, t he parties subse quently entere d an agr eeme nt to resol ve $125 0 of back ta xes wi th P etitione r making $50.00 mo nthly pa yment s. 22 Petitione r late r incre ased the mont hly pa yment am ount t o $75.00. 23 Petiti oner t estif ied tha t thes e payme nts w ere ma de under dure ss, fo llowin g threa ts an d police invol veme nt by Jenni ngs. 24 Petitio ner c laime d the paym ents were inte nded a s a tem porar y measur e 19 T r. 51:12–19. 20 Tr. 23:11–24:4; T r. 36:1–20. 21 A deed was never pres ented and it was l ater determined t hat Mr. Jennings did not have a deed to the land, bu t rather purpo rts to have been assisti ng the record owners wi th managing their property. T r. 44:16–45:1 1; T r. 169:1–13; T r. 172:1 1–173:13. 22 T r. 52: 2 –53:2; JX 9 at 30 (P etitioner dispu tes the si gnature on th is documen t is his); s ee JX 10 at 32; see JX 18 at 292–302. 23 T r. 150:6 –19; s ee JX 9 at 30 (Petitio ner disputes whether t he signat ure on this document is his); JX 10 at 32; se e JX 18 at 303– 11. 24 See T r. 61:9–21; see V an Horn, Michael Dep. T r. 1 1: 9–12:21.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 6 of 27 to main tain p eace ra ther tha n an ackn owle dgmen t of own ership. 25 None of th e payme nt me mos ref erenc ed “re nt.” 26 The re cord a lso contai ns a Commer cial Lease Agreement, ef fective April 1, 2020, betwe en T ownse nd Rea l Est ate & D evel opment L td. as “La ndlor d” an d Mi cha el V an Horn a s “T ena nt,” p urport ing to lease the “ back l ot and garag e of 31 5 Gray St.” month - to - mon th for $75.0 0 pe r mont h. 27 P etitio ner tes tifie d that t he signa ture o n that doc ument i s not hi s, that he never agreed t o such a lease, a nd did not use the pr emise s purs uant to a ny la ndlord - tena nt arrangeme nt. 28 The recor d prese nted at trial sh ows copi es of m ulti ple c hecks made payab le to T own send R ealt y and re lated e nti ties i n amou nts co nsiste nt w ith the purp orted mont hly re nt. 29 While Responde nt re lies o n those c heck s as evi dence o f renta l o r lease payme nts, Petitio ner c onten ds that h e issue d those paym ents on ly after the disput e aros e in 2014 and that he made them un der th reat o f police involv ement or 25 See T r. 9:5–19. 26 See Va n Horn, Micha el Dep. T r. 29:5– 30:10. 27 JX 10. 28 T r. 57:2– 6; V an Horn, Michael De p. T r. 12:5 –10. 29 JX 15 at 180 –82; JX 18.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 7 of 27 civil confront ation in order to avoid fur ther con flict, not as reco gniti on of Respo nde nt’ s owne rshi p. 30 At the end of 2023, Respo ndent a ctive ly mar keted t he pr opert y to sel l. An offer for $ 110,0 00 wa s recei ved in Dece mbe r 2023. 31 Additio nal offe rs fol lowed on March 1 and Mar ch 14, 2 024. 32 Realto r Candac e Sant oro, w ho list ed the p roper ty in Janu ary 202 4, test ified tha t the title “ got clou ded” on Ma rch 26, 20 24, upo n receivi ng n otice of this law suit. 33 She sta ted tha t buyer inte rest re maine d stron g but that s ettle ment c ould not proc eed be cause of the lis pen dens and ongoi ng li tigatio n — not be caus e of an y prior de lay. 34 Petit ioner fi led this quie t titl e acti on on M arch 2 2, 202 4, cla iming owners hip of prope rty thro ugh adv erse pos sessio n asse rting continu ous, o pen, and hos tile use since the 194 0s. 35 On that ba sis, he seeks a co urt order to quie t title in hi s name. 36 Respo nde nt reject s these claims an d has counter claime d for breac h of co ntract, 30 V an Horn, Michae l Dep. T r. 32:18–33:9; V a n Horn, Michael De p. T r. 12:14–21. 31 See JX 25 at 351– 53. 32 See JX 25 at 338– 47; s ee T r. 221:2–223:5. 33 See T r. 239:20–240:1 4. 34 See T r. 240:17–19; se e also T r. 256:24–258: 19. 35 D.I. 2; D.I. 1. 36 D.I. 1.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 8 of 27 tort ious in terfer ence, and sla nder of t itle, allegi ng tha t V an Horn re corde d a lis pende ns wit hout m erit, caus ing fina ncia l harm. 37 II. ANAL YSI S A. PLAINTI F F’S CLAI MS 1. Adver se Po ssessi on The ele ments o f adve rse pos sess ion are w ell - settled. The clai mant m ust show that th ey had o pen, n otor ious, e xclus ive an d hostile pos sessio n of la nd con tinu ously for the pre scrib ed peri od. 38 “Imp ortant ly . . . the burden of pro of for a dvers e posse ssio n is only [by] a preponderance o f the evidence, rather than [by] clear and convi ncing ev idence.” 39 For re asons furth er exp lain ed be low, Petitio ner sa tisfie d a ll requir ed ele men ts. i. Contin uou s Adver se poss essi on must b e cont inuou s for a st atutor y peri od of 2 0 years. 40 “ The Del aware S upreme Court pr eviously. . . hel d that t he ‘ uninterr upted and 37 D.I. 18 at 8. 38 See T araila v. Stevens, 1989 WL 1 10545, a t *1 (Del. Ch. Sep. 18, 1989); Suplee v. Eckert, 160 A.2d 590, 591 –92 (Del. Ch. 19 60); s ee A yers v. Pav e It, LLC., 2006 WL 2052377, at *2 (De l. Ch. July 1 1, 2006). 39 T umulty v. Schr eppler, 132 A.3d 4, 24 (Del. Ch. 2015). 40 Id.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 9 of 27 conti nuous enjoyment of land to const itut e adverse possess ion do es not r equir e the cons tant use t hereof. ”’ 41 The evidenc e stron gly su pport s a findi ng of co ntinu ous use. Since 194 2, the V an Horn s (sing ular “ V an Hor n ” for Mi chael; plura l “ V an Ho rns ” fo r Micha el and his f amily mem bers) hav e treat ed th e dispu ted pa rcel as thei r own, e ngagin g in a wide ra nge of a ctiv ities t hat re flect o ngoi ng posse ssio n and car e. It is true tha t there was no e vide nce to su ppor t that the V an Hor ns use d the dis puted p ropert y sinc e 1942, howe ver taking th e tes timony of T erry V an Ho rn as credib le, th e evid ence r eflects the V an H orns u tilize d the dispu ted pr operty sinc e at le ast the 1950 s. Even if the Court we re to use the 19 60s, wh en the Pet itione r has a more vi vid rec ollec tion of his grand paren t’ s use of the dispu ted prope rty, the st atutor y time period h as sti ll been met. Histor ical rec ords a nd fam ily acc ounts i ndicate that t he V an Horn s hav e cons istent ly mowe d the gras s, insta lled a nd mai ntai ned fe ncing, cut ve geta tion, erect ed a gara ge, par ked veh icles, and stor ed per sonal be lon gings on t he land. 42 These a ction s were not is olate d or incid ental. Rather, the y were repeated over deca des and c arrie d out in a ma nner c onsis tent wi th own ership. 41 Id. 42 See T r. 32:1 –41:3; s ee V an Ho rn, Michael Dep. T r. 24:23 –28:10; s ee T r. 19:1 7 –23:1; s ee V an Horn, Mar k Dep. T r. 19:2–22: 17.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 10 of 27 The conc ept of “ tacking ” also a pplie s here. “In order to make up the presc ripti ve pe riod, succe ssive a dver se us e [] by di ff eren t perso ns may be tac ked [or combi ned ], but ther e mus t be pri vity bet ween s uch per sons. ” 43 “The do ctrin e of tacki ng ma y be in voke d where the ‘ pre dece ssor i n title was under the impr essi on that s he was c onvey ing to t he pla intif fs the pr oper ty in di spute, and the p lain tif fs were under the impr essio n that b y reaso n of the d eed the y were o btai ning titl e to th at proper ty” e ven if the inst rume nt doe s not c onve y legal t itle to the pr operty. ’ 44 The con tinu ous use by the V an Horn s, including th e grand pare nts, so ns, brot hers, a nd gra ndso n, has been uni nterru pted e xcept for natura l fam ily succe ssio n. 45 The Petit ioner began using the prope rty i n 2014, follow ing sim ilar u se by his brot her Mar k an d, bef ore tha t, by t heir grand mothe r and o ther f amil y memb ers, a ll of who m mowed t he parc el, stored ve hicle s on it, a nd perf orme d gener al ma intena nce. 46 This famili al conti nuity reinfor ces the not ion of an unbroken 43 See T r eherne v. Forsight, LLC, 2022 WL 2057563, at *7 (Del. Ch. J une 6, 2022), r eport and r ecomme ndation adopted, 202 2 WL 2533087 (Del. Ch. July 6, 2022); Marta v. T rincia, 22 A.2d 519, 5 21 (Del.Ch.1941). 44 See T r eherne, 202 2 WL 2057563, at *7. 45 T he V an Horn fami ly members believed they had possessed the pro perty since at least 1942, exercised continuous and visible do minion over the land by constructing a garage, erecting a fence, parking vehicles, and making other i mproveme nts, and maintained uninterrupted posse ssion through successi ve generations. T r. 94:8–1 8; T r. 19:14–20:7. 46 See T r. 32:1 –41:3; s ee V an H orn, Mark D ep. T r. 19: 16–20:6; V an H orn, T erry D ep. T r. 14:21–19:6.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 11 of 27 chain of possess ion. At no poin t has t he prope rty be en aba ndon ed or reli nqui shed. T his un inter rupte d chain of use u ndersc ores the fam ily’ s commit ment to the pro perty and reinf orces t heir c laim t hroug h consi ste nt and v isible a ctio ns ov er the y ears. ii. Exclu sive U se “The e xclu sivit y elemen t doe s not req uire a bsolute exc lusivit y. ‘Exclu sive posse ssio n means t hat the adver se posse ssor must show exclu sive do mini on over th e land and a n appropr iati on of it to his or her be nefit.’ ” 47 Here, the V an Hor n family has exer cise d excl usive c ontr ol over the pr operty, as show n by wi tness te stimon ies and phy sical docum entat ion, i ncludi ng photo grap hs, ma ps, and diagra ms demo nstrat ing the ir exc lusi ve act s such a s parki ng vehic les, c onstru ction, erect ing fenc ing, a nd perf ormin g mainte nance. 48 T hese mater ials illustr ate t he fami ly’ s domini on ove r the la nd. W itnes ses, inc lud ing Mar k and T erry V an Hor n, corr oborate d the f amily ’ s e xclusi ve use, a ff irmin g that no other neig hbor c onstr ucted and mai ntaine d gar ages, and ma intai ned fe nces o ver th e years. 49 Moreov er, test imony f rom Mr. Je nnings t hat he parke d on the disp uted 47 See T umulty, 132 A.3d at 24. 48 See Tr. 32:1 –41:3; s ee V an Hor n, Michael Dep. T r. 26: 7–27:22; s ee V an Horn, T erry Dep. T r. 16:17 –2 0:20; s ee JX 15 a t 174; s ee J X 1 1 at 34 –37. 49 The record shows tha t the Faries family maintained fenced, en closed areas on their portion of the larger parcel and stored equ ipment insid e those fenc ed sections, includ ing trucks and farm machinery, but none of those fences or equipment ever appeared on the

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 12 of 27 proper ty o n one to t wo occa sions, is not suf ficie nt to und erm ine the V an H orn’ s exclu sive us e of the proper ty. iii. Open and Notorious Open an d notori ous pos sess ion requ ires tha t the use of the prope rty be v isible and a pparen t, pr ovidi ng not ice t o the tr ue o wner a nd the publi c. S ecretiv e o r hidd en posse ssion does not meet the cri teria f or ad verse posses sion, as it f ails to ale rt th e owner t o the adver se claim. 50 In thi s case, t he Van Hor n famil y’s use of the pr opert y has bee n both ope n and notor ious. Their a ction s, incl uding th e constr ucti on of an orig inal gar age by Petit ioner’ s grandf ather and the later construc tion of a repl aceme nt gara ge by Petit ioner an d his br other, a long wi th regula r main tena nce of the pr oper ty and the build ing of a f ounda tion o n the land, were visible to ne igh bors an d passer sby a nd disputed 50 -by-100- fo ot portion used by t he V an Horn f amily — a ctivities that do not interrupt or negate the V an Horns’ exclusive use of the specific dispu ted strip. T r. 89:13 – 90:10; Tr. 100:2 1 –102:19. M r. Jennings did not dispute t he V an H orns’ historic use of the property. His assertion of a competing claim o nly began in 2014 or later. According to his testimony, Mr. Jennings started as sisting the Faires around 200 3 or 20 04, but he did not become involved with the property until 2014. T r. 81:6 –9; Tr. 92:13 –93:14; T r. 173:1 1 – 13. This timeline further supports the V an Hor n family ’ s uninterrupt ed use of the property up to and beyond that p oint. 50 Bogia v. Kleiner, 201 9 WL 3761647, at * 10 (Del. Ch. Aug. 8, 2019) (citations omitted).

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 13 of 27 reinf orce d their be lief in owner ship. 51 The vi sible im prove ments a nd con tinuo us us e would ha ve put the record ow ner on not ice that an other p arty was ass erti ng owner ship ove r a portion of their land. This ope n and notor ious use sufficient ly notif ied the p ublic of the Van Hor ns’ ad verse c laim. iv. Hostil e Us e “Hos tilit y refer s to u se of pr operty i n a ma nner tha t is i ncons istent w ith t he righ ts of the true ow ner, as if the a dverse p ossess or owns the prope rty.” 52 “A hostile claim goes aga inst t he claim of owner ship of all oth ers, i nclud ing the r ecor d owne r.” 53 This el ement simply r equ ires t he adve rse p osses sor to u se the prope rty “as if it were his ow n, to the exclu sion o f all other s.” 54 There is no rec ord of any o bject ion or as serti on of ti tle b y prior o wners befor e 2014. 55 The fami ly ’ s beli ef in t heir ow nersh ip, bas ed on lo ngsta ndin g trad ition a nd 51 See T r. 32:1 –41:3; see V an Hor n, Michael Dep. T r. 26:7 –27:22; see V an H orn, T erry Dep. T r. 16:17 –2 0:20; see JX 15 a t 174; see J X 1 1 at 34 –37. 52 Bear d v. Davis, 2024 WL 357998, at *4 (Del. Ch. J an. 31, 2024), r eport and r ecommend ation adopt ed, 2024 WL 1214391 (Del. Ch. Mar. 20, 202 4). 53 T umulty, 132 A.3d at 27 (quoting A yers, 200 6 WL 2052377, at *2) (internal quotations omitted). 54 Id. 55 See T r. 170:10– 22 (no ting that the witness c laimed author ity over pro perty prior to 2014 but offered no docume ntary evidence of ownership or authorization f rom the record owner at that time); see also T r. 176:24–180:23 (testimony confir ming Oliver Jennings LLC was not formed until 2025 a nd thus could not have conferred aut hority in 2014).

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 14 of 27 use, sup ports the Petit ioner ’ s cla im that t he V an H o rn’ s use of t he prop erty was hosti le and a dver se to all others. v. Fina lity of T itle Thr ough Adv erse Pos sessio n Once a dver se po ssessi on is e stabl ishe d, any subse quent deed transf ers b y other s are ir relev ant, as t he tit le is ac quire d by posse ssi on, not b y inc lusion i n rec ord deeds. 56 The case of Ocean Balti mor e, LLC v. Ce lebra tion Mal l serves a s prec ed ent, holdi ng tha t once the elemen ts of adver se pos sessio n are sa tisf ied, t he pos sess or ’ s title is perfe cted, and an y subse quent c onveya nces b y othe rs do not af fec t the posse ssor ’ s ti tle. 57 Here, the Petiti oner, with his pr edec essor i n title, has demon stra ted cont inuou s, open, n otori ous, an d hostile posse ssion of the pro perty for over 20 years, there by mee ting the sta tutor y re quirem ents f or adv erse posse ssion in Delaw are. 58 56 See Ocean B altimor e, LLC v. Celebration Ma ll, LLC, 202 1 WL 19 06374, at *8 (Del. Ch. May 12, 2021), r epor t and r ecommen dation adopted, 2021 WL 2165256 (Del. Ch. May 25, 2021) (r ejecting re spondent’ s foc us on the chain of title and hol ding that th e absence of the disputed area fro m Lot 18’ s rec ord title, and its contin ued inclu sion in Lot 20 ’ s, did not defeat adverse pos session; explainin g that lack of recor d title is inherent to adverse possession, that only o uster before the t wenty - year period could hav e interrupted it, a nd that petitioner ’ s predec essors were not r equired to inclu de the area in later deed s or leases to retain title). 57 Id. at *17, *21. 58 See generally V an Ho rn, Mark Dep. T r. 19:16 –20:6; s ee V an Horn, Michael Dep. T r. 25:14–28:19; see T r. 32:1 –41:3; see V an H orn, Michael Dep. T r. 26:7 –27:22; see Va n Horn, T erry Dep. T r. 16:17 –20:20; see JX 15 a t 174; see JX 1 1 at 34– 37.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 15 of 27 The Res pond ent ’ s cla im of permi ssive use is unsup ported by e vide nce, rat he r, th e evide nce sup ports th at the Petiti oner ’ s poss essi on has bee n adver se for t he pr escr ibed perio d. Any a lleg ed lea se agre emen ts ar e irrele vant, as the y do no t ne gate the cont inuou s and host ile natur e of the poss essio n. 59 Furthermo re, t he paym ent of ta xes by the Re spon dent do es not unde rmine the Peti tioner ’ s claim, as tax pa yments alo ne do not con stitu te poss ession. 60 B. DEFENDANT’S COUNTE RCLAIMS The record reflects that the Res ponde nt and the as socia ted tru st ha d no colora ble legal owner ship of the prope rty w hen t hey ma de cla ims of title or ma rkete d 59 See generally JX 10 (Lease agreeme nt effective Apri l 1, 2020, betw een T ownsend Real Estate & Dev. Ltd. (Landlord) and Michael V an Horn (T enant), for the “back lot and garage of 315 Gray St.”, term month -to- month, rent $75, is entered as an exhibit but Petiti oner testifies the signature is not his and that h e never agreed to such lease, n or used the premis es under a lease); see JX 15 at 180 –82 (depicting m ultiple che ck copies a s e xhibits and referenced as supporting evidence of rental or lease payments, including checks mad e payable to T ownsend Realty and similar entities, in amo unts consisten t with the purpor ted rent); s ee V an Hor n, Michael Dep. T r. 12:1 1 –21 (explaining that payments were made under threat of police/c ivil confrontation). 60 See generally J X 15 at 179 (a l etter for $ 125 0 back taxes – whi ch was not ackn owledged by Jennings). The Co mmercial L ease Agree ment is an attempt to create an agree ment but it is unclear, as this d ocument was not signed by Michael V an Ho rn. S ee generally JX 15 at 178 (the Com mercial Leas e Agreement); V an Horn, Michae l Dep. T r. 12:5 –10. Petitioner made month ly payments called for by the par ties’ dis pute, but he sp ecifically denied being a tena nt, denied t hat the wri tten agreements created a formal la ndlord/tenant relationship, and cons idered his payment s to be for co ntinued p ossession/use “under duress” and not v oluntarily as a tenant. See V an Hor n, Michael Dep. T r. 17:1– 18:12; Tr. 61:9–21; see V an Horn, Michael Dep. T r. 1 1:9 – 12:21; T r. 53:15 –54:2 0.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 16 of 27 the pr oper ty bef ore 202 3. 61 Jenn ings fa iled to pro duce any d ocu mentar y auth orit y for t he period fro m 2014 to 2022. 62 This was confi rmed by his own trial testimony and d ocuments. 63 Respon dent ma inta ined tha t he was a “mana ger” a nd “par tner ” for the family under an ora l contr act. 64 How ever, he pro vide d no docum enta tio n when c hall enged, relyi ng ins tead on the as serti on that he wa s helpin g out t he fami ly as the ba sis for de ma nding mo ney an d asser ting ri ghts. 65 The quitc laim dee d int o the la nd tru st, whic h wou ld pro vide co lor of t itle, w as not e xecute d un til Fe bruary 61 T estimo ny established that “Oliver Jennings L LC” was newly formed and filed with the Division of Corporatio ns on January 2, 2025, and thus did not exist — and could not have conferred any authority — at the ti me of the disputed event s in 2014. T r. 176:24 –181:5. Mr. Jennings described it as a reco nstructed or reorganized entity created long after the origina l authority he claimed to have held since 20 04. Tr. 178:1–4. 62 T estimony established that “Oliver Jen nings LLC” was newly forme d and filed with the Division of Corporatio ns on January 2, 2025, and thus did not exist — and could not have conferred any authority — at the ti me of the disputed event s in 2014. T r. 176:24 – 181:5. Mr. Jennings described it as a reco nstructed or reorganized entity created long after the origina l authority he claimed to have held since 20 04. T r. 178:1 –4. 63 See Ocean Baltimor e, LLC, 20 21 WL 19063 74, at *8 (r ejecting re spondent’ s focus on the chain of title, holding that the abse nce of the disputed are a from Lot 18’ s record title, and its continued inclusion in Lot 20’ s, did not defeat adverse posses sion, and explaining that lack of record title is inherent to a dverse possession, th at only oust er before the twenty - year period could have interrupted it, and that petitioner ’ s predece ssors were not required to include the area in later deeds or lease s to retain title); see V an Horn, Mar k Dep. T r. 19:16–20:6; see V an Horn, Michael Dep. T r. 25:14 –28:19; see T r. 32:1 –41:3; see Va n Horn, Michael Dep. T r. 26:7 –2 7:22; see V an Horn, T erry Dep. T r. 16:17 –20:20; see JX 15 at 174; see JX 1 1 at 34 –37. 64 See T r. 172:1 1– 174:21. 65 Id.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 17 of 27 2023 a nd re corde d there after, nine years after his fi rst de mand. 66 Thi s lack of docum entar y aut horit y and de laye d acqui sitio n of tit le bea rs dire ctly on Respo nde nt’ s br each of contr act, tor tio us interf ere nce, an d sland er of ti tle coun tercla ims, w hich are addr essed below. 1. Brea ch of Contract To b e succes sful on a cl aim f or bre ach of contr act, one m ust prove the follo wing: (1) the exis tence of a co ntrac tual ob ligat ion; (2) a breach of that obligat ion by the defe ndant; and (3) a ca usal ly rela ted inj ury t hat warra nts a re med y, such a s dama ges or spe cif ic perfor manc e. 67 Absent amb iguit y, cour ts inte rpret c ontra ct term s accor ding t o the ir plain and or dinar y mean ing. 68 Respo nde nt asser ts t hat the Peti tioner was a tena nt of the proper ty an d bring ing th is lawsu it br ea ches the lease agreement. 69 Howeve r, b ecause P etition er has es tabl ished a r ight to the pr opert y throu gh adverse posses sion, Respo ndent’ s coun tercla im for brea ch of co ntrac t is moo t. As e xpla ined in Ocean Baltimo r e, on ce the ele ments of adve rse pos sess ion are satisfi ed, t he poss essor ’ s title i s perfe cted, 66 See JX 4 at 13–14; see JX 17 at 247–48; see Tr. 163:1–165:9. 67 See Namdar v. Fried, 2025 WL 1604402, at *4 (Del. C h. June 6, 20 25). 68 See Trifecta Multime dia Hldgs. Inc. v. W CG Clinical Servs. L LC, 318 A.3d 4 50, 470 (Del. Ch. 2024). 69 D.I. 18 at 5.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 18 of 27 and an y subse que nt conve yance s by ot hers d o not af fect t he pos sess or’s tit le. 70 “Gene rally s peak ing, in order to inter rupt the adve rse po ssess ion per iod, t he true owner m ust oust the advers e posse ssor, either by ob tainin g a judg ment a gain st the posse ssor o r by e nteri ng the disp uted pr ope rty in a way t hat e xclud es him.” 71 While the Re spon dent di d infor m the Pe titio ner t hat the disp uted pro pert y belon ged t o the Farie s, the re is no ev idenc e tha t the Re sp ondent excl uded t he P etitio ner fr om th e proper ty. Rather, Resp onde nt attem pted to crea te an a greem ent t hat wou ld perm it the Pe titio ner to contin ue to u se the pr oper ty for a fe e. However, Respon dent’s attem pt to g rant pe rmis sive us e of the prope rty fa ils as th e adver se pos sessi on requir eme nts wer e alrea dy met by P etiti oner’s pr edec essor in title. Even if this we re not the case, th ere is no evi dence t hat Re sponde nt had a ny author ity to ma ke an agree ment in 20 14 betwe en the Peti tioner and the rec ord owner s. Accor din gly, an y claim s prem ised on breac h of lea se or con tract ual obliga tio ns lack me rit. Petitio ner’s owne rship i ntere st super sede s any al lege d lease hold r ight s. Therefore, Petitioner ’ s actio ns do n ot con stitu te a bre ach of 70 See Ocean Baltimore, LLC, 2021 WL 19 06374, at *8 (internal citations omitted) (“Respondent (and it s predecessor s) could n ot defeat the accruing adverse p ossession by attempts to shore up, or alert the adverse possessor of, its record title — only ouster or attempted ouster before the expiration of the 2 0 - year period w ould ha ve been sufficient.”). 71 Tumulty, 132 A.3d at 25 (citing Acierno v. Goldstein, 2004 W L 1488673, at *6 n.41 (Del. Ch. June 29, 200 4)).

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 19 of 27 contra ct, a nd Responden t ’ s claim s for damage s and termin ation of righ ts under the purp orted lease are unfounded. 2. Tort ious Inte rfere nce with Contract ual Re lati ons In Dela ware, to stat e a claim f or tor tious i nterfer ence with contrac tual rela tions a pla intiff must satisf y five elem ents: (1) t he ex istence of a c ontra ct; (2) th e defend ant ’ s knowle dge of the c ontrac t; (3) an in tent ional a ct th at ca used a breac h of the co ntract; (4) the a ct was unj ustif ied; an d (5) the ac t caused i njury. 72 Respon dent allege s tha t the pr oper ty was l isted t o be so ld, bu t due to the Pe tit ioner’ s laws uit, t he Respo nde nt had to rej ect offe rs and coul d not se ll the property, const ituting to rtious interf ere nce with co ntrac t. 73 Here, Peti tione r and his fami ly have con siste ntly use d and main taine d the dispu ted la nd for decade s, ope ratin g und er the ge nui ne belie f tha t it was their proper ty. 74 Althou gh Res ponde nt attem pte d to sell 315 Gr ay St reet, whic h wou ld inclu de parts of the disp uted pr operty, in 2023 and 2024, the record contains no 72 This legal framework is supported by Section 766 of the Restatement (Second) of T orts, (A.L.I. 1979), and the p recedent set in W ave Division Hldgs., L LC v. Highland Cap. Mgmt., L. P., 49 A.3d 1 168, 1 174 (Del. 201 2). 73 D.I. 18 at 6. 74 See V an Horn, Mark D ep. T r. 19:16 –20:6; see V an Horn, Michael Dep. T r. 25:14 –28:19; see T r. 32:1 –41:3; see V an Horn, M ichael De p. T r. 26:7 –27:22; see V an Horn, T erry Dep. T r. 16:17 –20:20; see JX 15 at 17 4; see JX 1 1 at 34–37.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 20 of 27 evide nce that th e Petit ioner too k any actio n inten ded to inter fere wi th the Respond ent ’s prop erty dealin gs. The thr ee offers R espo ndent r ece ived pred ated this laws uit a nd there is n o eviden ce tha t the Pe titi oner di scour aged p otenti al pur chaser s or impe ded s ales o f the p roper ty. Petit ioner’ s con duct wa s rela ted to ass erti ng an ad verse cl aim to th e prop erty; he did n ot enga g e in impr oper acts tar getin g Resp ondent’ s contr acts. Th e fa cts there fore d o not suppor t a clai m of tort ious interfer enc e with co ntrac tual re lati ons as the Pe titi oner’ s acti ons wer e nei ther intent ional nor u njustif ied in re latio n to t he Respo nde nt’s contr actua l deal ings. Moreove r, alt hough Resp ondent was abl e to show how much th e pro perty could sell for, Resp onden t faile d to sh ow tha t an ac tual contra ct to sell the prope rty ever exi sted des pite r eceiving multip le of fers. 75 As previo usly n oted, once t he eleme nts of adve rse po sses sion ar e met, l egal title vests i n the p osses sor. 76 Accor dingl y, any cla im pr edica ted on to rtiou s 75 T r. 239:6 –241:21. 76 See Ocean Baltimor e, LLC, 2021 W L 1906374, at *8 (rejecting res pondent’ s focus on the chain of title, holding that the abse nce of the disputed are a from Lot 18’ s recor d title, and its continued inclusion in Lot 20’ s, did not defeat adverse posses sion, and explaining that lack of record title is inherent to a dverse possession, th at only oust er before the twenty - year period could have interrupted it, and that petitioner ’ s predece ssors were not required to include the area in la ter deeds or leases to retain title).

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 21 of 27 interf ere nce is wi thout mer it beca use no ouster o ccurr ed bef ore the P etiti oner’ s prede cessor met the stat utor y requir ement f or adverse posse ssion. 3. Sland er of T itle The ele ment s of a sla nder of titl e claim a re: (1) the malic ious; (2) publicati on of; (3) fals e matter concer ning th e state of title of proper ty whic h; (4) c aus es sp e cial dama ges. 77 Respond ent allege s tha t Peti tion er’s re cordi ng of a l is p endens w as witho ut mer it, c ontai ned fal se sta temen ts, an d resu lted in f inanc ial har m. Petiti one r record ed the lis pend ens on March 2 2, 2024. 78 Although Pe titioner filed t he lis p endens shortly af ter the Respo ndent l isted 3 15 Gray Str eet f or sale, Petit ioner’ s actio ns in record ing the l is p ende ns were ba sed o n a legi timate lega l disput e. The ab sence of any fa lse stat eme nts or ma licio us inte nt in the P etit ioner’ s actio ns ne gates the Respo nden t’ s cl aim of sla nder of title as the l is p en dens wa s a lawfu l and justif ied meas ure in the co ntext of the o ngoi ng lega l proce eding s. As such, Respo nden t’ s c laim f or sla nder of titl e and da mages f ails. C. AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSES 1. Estop pel 77 Tumulty v. Schreppler, 2015 WL 147819 1, at *20 (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 2015). 78 See D.I. 4.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 22 of 27 Respond ent argues that P etitio ner is estoppe d from pursui ng hi s clai m due to exec uting the lea se agree ment. 79 Respond ent a sserts it relie d on th e lease agreeme nt exec uted b y Pet itione r for t he di spute d prope rty and used t his infor matio n to acqu ire furthe r prope rty aro und that loc ati on. 80 Estopp el app lies “ when a pa rty b y [their] c ondu ct intent iona lly or uninte nti onall y lead s another, in re lianc e upon t hat co nduct, to cha nge p ositi on to h[is ] detr imen t.” 81 To estab lish es toppe l, the pa rty cla imin g estopp el mus t show t he follo wing three eleme nts: (1) he l acked kno wled ge or the me ans of obtain ing knowl edge of the trut h of the fa cts in que stion; (2) he relied on the con duc t of the party a gain st whom e sto ppel is cla imed; a nd (3) he suffere d a pr ejudic ial cha nge o f posit ion a s a resu lt of he r relia nce. 82 The mo st imp ortant a spec t of the Re spond ent’ s estopp el clai m is his r elia nce on the lea se agre ement. However, Petit ioner ackn owled ges he enter ed in to an agree ment for back tax es, he den ies ente ring int o a lease agr eemen t with the 79 D.I. 44 at 6; D.I. 62 at 3. 80 D.I. 62 at 13–14. 81 W aggoner v. Laster, 581 A.2d 1 127, 1 136 (Del. 1990) (qu oting W ilson v. Am. Ins. Co., 209 A.2d 902, 903 –04 (Del. 1965)). 82 Bantum v. New Castl e Cty. Vo - Tech Educ. Ass’n, 21 A.3d 44, 51 (Del. 2011) (citing Waggoner, 581 A.2d at 1136).

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 23 of 27 Respo nde nt for the dispute d lan d. 83 Responde nt conf irm s this whe n he acknow ledge d that t he fir st lease agr eemen t in 20 14 was n ot exec ute d by the Petit ioner, r ather by Peti tioner’ s son u nder Respo ndent ’ s bel ief t hat Pet itioner’ s so n was t he owner of t he pro perty. 84 Petitio ner su bseque ntl y confir med that the 20 20 lease agreem ent is n ot his sig natur e. 85 It is perp lexing that R espo ndent a sser ts relia nce on a n agr eemen t he adm its wa s not si gne d by the P etit ioner. Even if I were to con sider t he 2020 a greem ent, Pe titio ner cre dibl y testifie d tha t he als o did not s ign this ag reeme nt. Respon dent’ s bur den to prov e he rel ied on Petit ioner’ s cond uct t o his de trime nt ca nnot b e met as P etit ioner’ s cond uct doe s not supp ort that he w illin gly enter ed int o an agre em ent show ing t hat he ac knowle dges Resp onden t’ s right to t he dispu ted pr oper ty of w hich Re spond ent de trimen tall y relie d on. 2. L ac hes The Re spon dent ass erts tha t Petit ione r’s claim shou ld be bar red by the doctr ine of lac hes. Laches ba rs an act ion in eq uity if: “[t]he plain tiff wai ted a n unrea sona ble len gth of tim e before bring ing the su it and. . . the dela y unfa irly 83 T r. 87:3–6. 84 T r. 149:22–150:5. 85 T r. 87:3–6.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 24 of 27 preju dice s the defe nda nt.” 86 Theref ore, l aches ge neral ly req uire pr o ving th ree eleme nts: “f irst, kno wledge by the claima nt; se cond, unrea sonable dela y in br ingi ng the cla im; a nd thir d, resu ltin g prej udice to the d efenda nt.” 87 Beginni ng in 2014, whe n Peti tion er starte d ma king month ly $50.0 0 payme nt s towar d $1250 ba ck taxes, Pe titione r be came awa re t hat so mething could be in co rrec t abou t his belie f that he ow ned the d ispute d proper ty simil ar to his gr andpar ents. Howev er, Pe titio ner claim ed t he pa ymen ts were intende d as a temp orary m easur e t o mainta in pea ce rather tha n an acknowl edgme nt of own ership. 88 He a lso de nied t ha t any pay ments he made eve r consti tuted ren t and not ed that none of the payment memo s on the c heck s refe rred t o t h e pay ment s as re nt. 89 Howe ver, in late 2023 and early 202 4 when Res pondent acti vely be gan to marke t the pr oper ty, Peti tioner too k acti on to conf irm wh ether his bel ief ab out the dispu ted pr oper ty was c orrec t by fili ng thi s law suit an d the lis pendens. The re cord co ntain s no evide nce tha t Pet ition er’s decis ion to fil e this la wsu it in 2024 and not 2014 was strate gic or inequi table. Nor is t here cr edible evide nce of 86 Whittington v. Dragon Grp., L.L.C., 9 91 A.2d 1, 8 (Del. 2009). 87 Id. 88 See Tr. 9:5–19; T r. 61:16–21. 89 See Va n Horn, Micha el Dep. T r. 29:4– 32:1 1.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 25 of 27 preju dice t o Respo ndent. Rather, t he record reflects that the P etitioner’s concer n abou t the dis puted p orti on of lan d were n ot rea lized u ntil 2 024 whe n the Respondent attem pted to se ll the prope rty. Ther e is no e vidence that th e Respon dent provid ed the Petitioner any docu mentatio n to contr adict hi s belief th at the di sputed pr opert y was h is or a ny atte mpt t o oust the Pet ition er or e xclu de Petition er from the pr oper ty befor e the pr oper ty was l isted f or sale. As such, Resp onden t’s la ches arg umen t fails as the rec ord re flec ts the Pet itioner file d this matt er wit hin mo nths of th e Respo nde nt’s atte mpt to sell t he di spute d prope rty. D. ATTOR NEY ’S FE ES Delaw are f ollow s the Ame rica n rule which state s that “ [l]iti gan ts are n ormal ly respo nsibl e for pa ying th eir own li tiga tion cos ts.” 90 An exce ption to th is rule i s th e bad fai th exce ption, wh ich re quires the party se eking to sh ift fee s to satisf y “the stri ngent e viden tiar y burden of prod ucing ‘clea r evide nce’ of bad fa ith.” 91 None of the par ties ha ve enga ged in c onduc t that wo uld ju stify an a ward of ba d fait h fee shif ting. 90 See Mahani v. Edix Media Gp., Inc., 935 A.2d 242, 245 (Del. 2 007). 91 Dearing v. Mixmax, Inc., 202 3 WL 2632476, at *5 (Del. Ch. Mar. 2 3, 2023) (O RDER) (quoting Beck v. Atl. Coast PLC, 868 A.2d 84 0, 851 (Del. Ch. 2005)).

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 26 of 27 The Re spo ndent’ s char acter izat ion of P etit ioner’ s cla ims a s “ base less ” amounts to a dvocacy; however, advocacy is a f ar cry from a judici al find ing of frivo lousn ess or bad f aith. Peti tioner seeks to conf irm h is ow nershi p t o the dis puted land, a re medy groun ded i n Dela ware ’s adver se posse ssio n law and sup porte d by a devel ope d record. Becau se the partie s’ pos ition s rest on a rea sona ble fac tual a nd legal f ounda tion, this case does not fall wit hin any rec ognize d exce ption t o the Amer ican R ule. The Co urt theref ore de clines to shift attorn eys’ fee s, and eac h part y shal l bear i ts own c osts of liti gation. III. CONCLUSI ON For th e fo regoing reas ons, the Cour t finds t hat Mic hael Ke lvin Va n Hor n estab lishe d title to the pr opert y by a dvers e pos sessi on. The Court reje cts Towns end Real Es tate ’ s de fen ses and c ount erclai ms for la ck of eviden tiar y supp ort and f inds no cre dible e vide nce of permi ssive use or l ease.

Michael Kelvin V an Ho rn v. T ownsend Re al Estate, et al. C.A. No. 2024-0291- LM February 27, 2026 Page 27 of 27 Judgm ent s hall be en tered in Pe titio ner’s favor un less e xceptio ns are t imely filed u nder C ourt o f Chance ry Ru le 144. U pon t his R eport bec oming fina l, Petit ioner sh all subm it an imple ment ing orde r. 92 Respe ctful ly subm itted, /s/ Loren M itche ll Magis trate i n Cha ncery 92 The imp lementing ord er shall include a mete s and bounds descri ption of the disputed land based on a final su rvey at the Petitione r ’ s expense.