Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wilson - Forged Deed Case

COUR T OF CHAN CERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE D AVID H UME, IV M AGISTRATE IN C HANCERY C OURT OF C HANCERY C OURTHOUSE 34 T HE C IRCLE G EORGETOWN, DE 19947 Repor t: Feb ru ar y 27, 2026 Date S ubm itte d: Ja nuar y 15, 2 026 John S. White la w, Es quire 100 W. 10 th St., Suite 8 01 Wilm ingto n, Del awar e 198 01 Attorn ey f or Pla intif f Dean A. Cam pbe ll, E squ ire 703 C hest nut St. Milt on, De laware 19968 Attor ney fo r Defen dant s Wenge rt and Heim bach Richa rd Be rl, E squ ire 309 Rehobo th Ave nue Rehobot h Beach, Delaw are 19971 Attorn ey for Defendan t Wils on RE: Larry Sterc ula v. Vi olet W enge rt, Bruce Heim bac h and J ay K. W ilso n C.A. No. 20 22 - 0667 Dear C oun sel: This i s the C our t’s d ecis ion on Pla int iff La rry S terc ula’ s act ion t o rec over re al e state, estab lis h a con struc tive tr ust, and r ela ted r elief. I. BACKG RO UND 1 1 The facts set forth herein were proven by a preponderance of the evid ence at trial. Factual citations are to: the P re - Trial Stipulation and Order, D.I. 76 (“PTO”); the D raft Trial Transcript (“Tr. _”); Individual Trial Exhibits (c ited by party name and exhibit number) and Joint Trial Exhibit s (cited by “JX” nu mber). Additional citation s are to Plaintiff’s Post - Trial Opening Brief (P OB), Defendants Wengert’s and Heimbach’s Post -Tria l Opening Brief (DOB - Wengert), Defendant Jay Wilso n’s Post - Trial Opening Brief (DOB -W ilson), Plaintiff’s Post - Trial Reply Brief (PRB), Defe ndants Wengert’s a nd Heimbach’s Post - Trial

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 2 of 19 Larr y Ster cula seek s re turn of rea l esta te loc ate d at 1 2 Ho lly Lea f Dri ve, Georg eto wn, De lawa re (“the Pr ope rty”), cl aim ing tha t it was tr ansf erre d via f or ged deed. 2 He conte nds that h is form er pa ram our, De fen dant V iole t We ngert, cons pired with D efe ndan t Br uce He im bach to for ge Sterc ula’s nam e on the deed when it was transf err ed t o Wenge rt i n 2016. Ste rcu la ass ert s tha t We ngert sol d it to D efe ndan t Jay Wilson, an innoce nt pur cha ser, in 2 019. He request s th at pr oceeds from t he sale be place d in a co nstr ucti ve tru st. S terc ula conte nds that the sale to Wilson is vo id ab initi o becau se of the al leged dee d for gery. Be cause I f ind t hat Pl aintiff has not prove n tha t the dee d wa s forge d, I r ule in fav or of De fen dant s. A. Stercula and Wen gert M eet in Pennsyl vania Sterc ula l ived in a ho me in P ott stown, Pen nsy lvan ia wi th his w ife. 3 Weng ert was a f riend of S terc ula ’s wife. 4 Wenger t and her t wo dau ght ers mo ved in w ith Sterc ula a nd his wi fe. 5 Stercula enco unt ered c halle nge s in his m arria ge, an d he and Reply Brief (DRB - W engert), and Defen dant Wilson’ s Post - Trial Reply Br ief (DRB - Wilson). 2 Petition for Recovery of Real Estate Due to Forgery, For Constru ctive Trust, and for Related Relief (“Pet.”). D.I. 1. 3 Tr. 6. 4 Id. 6:24. 5 Id. 7:4–9.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 3 of 19 his wife se para ted. 6 After his w ife m ove d out, S terc ula and Wenge rt bec ame a coupl e. 7 B. Stercula and Wengert Purchase 12 H oll y Le af Dri ve Sterc ula v isit ed De lawar e to f ish f or de cades. 8 He dec ide d it wo uld b e easie r to se ll his home in P en nsylva nia and mov e to Delaw are ra the r th an tra veli ng on weeke nds. 9 In 2006, he p urcha se d the pr oper ty a t 12 Ho lly Le af Drive. 10 Ster cula made a $40, 000 d own paym en t and had a $1 00,0 00 mor tga ge. 11 Ster cula incl uded Weng ert’ s name o n the de ed an d the m ort gage. 12 The mor tga ge incl uded a ba llo on payme nt, so it woul d have to be ref ina nced with in seve n year s to avoid the payme nt. 13 Stercula and W enger t split the mor tgag e pa ymen ts and l ivi ng expen ses. 14 6 Id. 8-9. 7 Id. 9:17–19. 8 Id. 10. 9 Id. 10 Id. 9–10. 11 Id. 11. 12 Id. 12; JX 1–2. 13 Id. 13. 14 Id. 12.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 4 of 19 C. Sterc ula G oes t o Pr ison in 20 10 Police arr este d Ster cula in 201 0. 15 He lef t his wa llet a nd ide ntif yin g docum ents at the P roperty. 16 Stercula wa s conv icte d and se ntenc ed t o pris on. 17 While incarce rated, Ste rcul a sign ed a Po wer of Attor ney (POA) allo w ing Wengert to ref ina nce t he P roper ty. 18 Wen gert r efi nance d the Prop erty with a $90, 000 mortg age in 2013, signi ng the paper wor k both persona lly a nd as S terc ula’ s age nt purs uant t o the P OA. 19 The prom issor y note for t he ref inan cing lists We ngert’s name as the sol e bo rrower. 20 Wengert also spok e to Ste rcula about removing his name fr om the dee d to preve nt the m fr om losin g the h ouse if hi s vic tim’ s fam ily sued him. 21 Wenge rt ne ver vi site d Ste rcu la in pr iso n. 22 After Ster cula ’ s 15 Id. 15. 16 Id. 16. 17 Id. 16. 18 Id. 18–19. 19 JX 3. 20 Wengert Ex. 2. 21 Tr. 19. 22 Id. 17.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 5 of 19 incar cera tion, We nger t her a llega tio ns t hat he pre viou sly s exual ly ab use d he r daug hters. 23 He was r elea sed fro m incarceration in 2016. 24 D. Sterc ula i s Rele ase d from Pris on in 2 016 and 12 Hol ly Dr ive is Conv eyed fro m Sterc ula and Wengert t o Wenger t Upon r elea se from pris on, S terc ula went to a mote l in Sea for d, De lawar e. 25 Defe nda nt Bruc e Hei mbac h 26 visited h im at the mote l. 27 A deed dated March 14, 2016 tr ansf erre d the P r oper ty fr om Sterc ula a nd We ngert t o Wen gert a lone. 28 The docum ent be ars t he pur por ted si gnat ure of Ster cu la, as we ll as De fen dant Br uc e Heimb ac h as a wi tnes s. 29 E. Stercula Never Retu rns t o 12 Ho lly Leaf Drive. Sterc ula ne ver re turn ed to the Property. 30 Sterc ula moved from th e Seaford motel to tw o loca tio ns in D over, Dela ware, inc ludin g the Dover Inte rfa ith Mi ssion. 31 23 Tr. 155. 24 Id. 16. 25 Id. 21. 26 Heimbach was Wenge rt’s daughter’s boyf riend. Id. 29. 27 Id. 21–22. 28 JX 4. 29 Id. 30 Tr. 15:23-24. 31 Id. 26, 44.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 6 of 19 In Ma y 201 8, S terc ula was r e - arr este d a nd ret urne d to pris on. 32 He wa s relea se d again in 2 021. 33 F. Weng ert Se lls 1 2 Ho lly Le af Dr ive t o Wils on in 201 9 Wenger t sold 12 Hol ly Lea f Drive to Wilson on Jun e 19, 2019 for $1 05,000. 34 Wilso n wa s a bo na f ide pur cha ser witho ut n otic e. 35 Sterc ula r ecei ved n o mon ey from the sale. 36 Sterc ula lear ne d abo ut the sale fr om hi s sis ter wh ile he was incar cera ted in 20 19. 37 II. ANAL YSIS I begin with t he ini tial que sti on pres ente d by bo th side s: can Ste rcula prov e by clea r and con vinc ing ev iden ce tha t his si gnat ure on the 201 6 deed was f orge d? This q uesti on mu st be answe red i n Pla intif f’s fa vor b efor e I can c ons ider th e par ties ’ other a rgu ment s. As wit h a jur y, whe n ther e is con tra dictor y te stim ony, I shoul d 32 Id. 27. 33 Id. 43–44. 34 JX 11, 13. 35 PTO § II(I). 36 Id. § II(B). 37 Tr. 44.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 7 of 19 make be st eff orts to make o ne harm oni ous st ory of i t all. Mullin v. A scetta, 2021 WL 427 206 3, at * 2 (De l. S uper. Sept. 20, 202 1). A. Wengert’s and He imbach’ s accounts of the deed tran sfer are more reliab le th an Stercula’s. 1. Sterc ula’ s te stimon y The P OA specif ically gr anted Wen gert the ability to execute d ocuments rela ted t o the sal e an d tran s fer of 12 Ho lly Le af Driv e. 38 Stercul a testif ied th at his goal when he b ought the ho use w as to l ive the re for the rest of his li fe. 39 He d ecided not to g o bac k to t he ho use b eca use it c oul d “star t tr ouble.” 40 I found Sterc ula to be a fa irly cred ible w itness but signif ica ntly limit ed in his abili ty to recall. S terc ula s uffe red thre e str okes in 2022 r es ultin g i n me mory iss ues. 41 Sterc ula a lso a dmit ted t o bei ng dia gnosed wit h a form of de ment ia wh ile incar cera ted fr om 2010 to 20 16. 42 In 201 9, S tercu la wr ote i n a Supe rior C ourt f ili ng 38 JX 15. 39 Tr. 25–26. 40 Id. 24:10-13. 41 Id. 49:18-23. 42 Id. 57.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 8 of 19 that he was “m edic all y, men tall y disa ble d.” 43 Stercu la ta kes med ica tion f or h is memory. 44 Sterc ula de nie d that he was c oncer ned a bout lo sin g the ho use t o his vi ctim’ s fami ly bec ause W en ger t’s n ame was o n the de ed. 45 Desp ite re ad ing the P OA befo re signi ng it, Ster cul a beli eved t hat i t was l imit ed a nd did not pe rmi t Wen gert t o sel l the hou se. 46 This is wr ong. The P OA spec ifica lly c ontem plat es sa le and tra nsfer of the Prop erty. 47 The POA stat es t hat Ste rcu la ma kes W enge r t his “true an d lawf u l Attor ney - in - fact wi th the pow er and a uth orit y to ac t on [his] be half, with r esp ect t o the sale of the pr ope rty kno wn as 12 Ho lly Lea f Dri ve . . . .” 48 Stercul a belie ve d tha t the d ocume nt pr ese nt ed in C ourt was m iss ing a port ion. 49 Sterc ula had diffic ult y remem ber ing the P OA that h e sig ned. 50 He test ifie d, “I do re gre t it, y ou kn ow, if 43 Wengert Ex. 1. 44 Tr. 56. 45 Id. 19. 46 Id. 36–38. 47 JX 15. 48 Id. 49 Tr. 38–39. 50 Id. 36–40.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 9 of 19 this is a ll tr ue, ” ref err ing t o the Po wer of Att orne y subm itte d dur ing t he trial. 51 This was i ndica tive of S terc ula’s f aile d mem or y. I look to t he surr ound ing fa cts to ma ke sen se of his te stim ony. When he wa s arrested, Ster cula l eft ever yth ing he owned at the Property, including his iden tifica tio n and w alle t. 52 Stercula made no ef fort s to re tur n to the house or ha ve anyo ne rem oved fr om it. 53 If Ster cula d id n ot inte nd to t ran sfer th e hou se to W enge r t and, instea d, i nten ded t o reta in the hom e himse lf, his a cti ons ar e inco ngru ous with this alleged i nten t. Af ter hi s re lease from pris on, he di d not r etu rn t o the house eve n though his wall et and other id entifi cation we re there. Nor is t here an y indi cation that he tried t o pay t he mor tga ge or inquired in to ho w it wa s bei ng pai d. He li ved i n a mote l and sever al locations in Dov er inc luding th e Dove r Interf aith Miss ion. 54 Althoug h S terc ula expre ssed d isco mfo rt w ith ret urni ng t o the h ome in ligh t of ab use alleg ations inv olving Weng ert’s da ughte r s, he st ill f ail s to a dequ ate ly e xpla in hi s aband onme nt of t he prop erty a nd fail ure to act as if he sti ll own ed the h ome. Af ter all, S terc ula wa s esse ntia lly ho mele ss afte r hi s relea se. Des pite h is claim at tria l tha t, 51 Id. 40:1– 2. 52 Id. 16. 53 Id. 42. 54 Id. 44.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 10 of 19 “I wa nt my house bac k so I ca n die there, ” 55 he took no st eps t o ret urn t o the pr ope rt y or to w ithdr aw hi s fina ncia l inter est fr om it. It def ies l ogic t hat he woul d ac t this way if he bel ieve d he wo uld o ne day a gain live in the ho use. The fac t that h e di d not ha ve in - per son or telep hone contac t wi t h We ngert sinc e hi s ti me in pris on i s als o indic ati ve of a deci sion to mo ve on fr om the pr oper ty. 56 2. Wen gert’ s te stim ony Weng ert ha s bias aga ins t Sterc ula be cause he allege dly a buse d her dau ghter s. Even s o, she ma inta in ed c ontac t wi th him fo r a time afte r he went to pr iso n, inc lud ing putti ng mone y on his pr ison c ommi ssar y acco unt. 57 I foun d We ngert’ s tes tim ony t o be credible. She was un awa re tha t the POA allo wed he r to se ll the p roper ty. 58 This is impo rtan t beca use We ngert d id not nee d to co nspire to sell t he prope rt y. Sterc ula ’s POA gav e her t he a bilit y to sel l the pr oper ty at any tim e w itho ut hi s inp ut. I f Wenger t inte nded t o steal t he Pro pert y from Sterc ula, s he alr eady p osse sse d lega l 55 Id. 30. 56 Id. 41. 57 Id. 153–54. 58 Id. 141.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 11 of 19 power t o obt ain so le ti tle to t he pro perty v ia the POA. The fact tha t she invol ved Sterc ula in th e 2016 deed bu ttre sse s her argu me nt that Ste rcu la agreed to have her assum e resp ons ibili ty for the mo rtga ge an d the pro per ty. Her collab orati on with Sterc ula af ter exe cuti ng the 20 12 POA furthe r ind icate s no inte nt to il lici tly dep rive Sterc ula of la wful ti tle. Wenger t learned vi a an appli cation on her phone th at Stercul a was being relea sed fr om pr iso n in 201 6. 59 Althou gh th ere was n o agree men t to d o so, W enger t had the 2 016 d eed dr awn up t o remo ve St erc ula’ s name be ca use she was pa ying t he mortg age. 60 She was hop ing he wo uld si gn the ho use over to he r. 61 Wen ger t made the mor tga ge paym ent s on the pro pert y from 20 16 to 20 19. 62 T he atto rney who draf ted the 2 016 dee d ins tructe d We ngert that Ste rcula woul d have to sign of f on the deed. 63 Heimbac h acted as a g o - betwe en to get the deed sig ned. 3. Heim bach ’s te sti mony 59 Id. 140. 60 Id. 138, 148, 161. 61 Id. 148. 62 Id. 141–42. 63 Id. 161.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 12 of 19 Heimb ac h met Ster cula at the m otel i n Seaf ord af ter his r elea se. 64 Hei mbach prov ided Ste rcu la with a c heck f rom W eng ert a nd dr ove him to a ba nk w her e Sterc ula de pos ited the c heck. 65 The par tie s dive rge o n wha t hap pen ed nex t. St ercu la test ified th at the y return ed to the hote l after the ba nk vi sit a nd Heim bach le ft. 66 Heimb ac h say s tha t a fter t hey r etu rned, the y disc usse d the dra fte d deed a nd Ster cul a agree d to sig n in ord er to avo id los ing the home if the y were sued. 67 Heimb ach drove S terc ula to the UP S sto re in S eaf ord wher e th ey bo th sig ned th e dee d and i t was no tariz ed. 68 Eve n cons ideri ng He imba ch’s potentia l for bias ba sed o n hi s relat ionship with Wen gert ’s daughte r, I foun d his te stim ony c re dibl e. A discr epa ncy prese nt in the trans ac tion is that t he deed w as si gned a nd notar ize d on Marc h 14. 69 The rede mpt ion c heck tha t Ster cul a de posi ted is da te d March 14, 201 6, b ut the rev ers e side of the c heck a ppear s to conta in a de posit date/ time of Marc h 17, 2 016. 70 Ster cula a rgues that th is disc redi ts Hei mba ch ’s 64 Id. 174. 65 Id. 66 Id. 23. 67 Id. 174. 68 Id. 175–76. 69 JX 4. 70 JX 7, Exemplar K- 11.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 13 of 19 test imon y beca use Heimb ach te stif ied that both t he ba nk a nd UPS s tore visi ts occur red th e same day. 71 Defe nda nts contend that Heimb ach may have misre mem bere d the chai n of eve nts becaus e they occ urre d almo st 10 year s ago. 72 I note t hat t he re dempt ion c heck wa s no t sub mitte d as a n inde pen dent e xhi bit. Ra ther, it was pa rt of t he pac ka ge of ha ndwr itin g exe mplar s rev iewe d by Pla intif f’s hand writ ing e xper t. No ba nk of fic ial te stifi ed a bout r eas ons for t he di ffe ren ce betwe en the dat e on the fron t of the chec k, the alle ge d depos it d ate, and th e date on the bac k. Bot h Ste rcula and Hei mbac h ha ve bia s to te stif y as t hey d id. Ster cula wante d hi s prop erty bac k and He imbac h wa s al igne d with W eng ert. O n bala nce, I give mo re we igh t to He imbac h’s te stim ony be cau se his r ecall a t tri al was s uper ior to Ster cu la’s. B. The Handw rit ing Opinio ns Both pa rtie s pro vide d ha ndwr iting e xper ts — Kat her ine K oppe nhave r for the Plain tiff and Da vid S exto n for the Defe nda nts. I fi nd ne ither partic ula rly helpf ul i n deter min ing the authen ticity of S terc ula’ s signa ture o n the 2 016 deed. The expe rts prod uced r epo rts t hat were intr oduc ed a t tri al. 73 71 POB 7– 8. 72 DRB 2. 73 JX 6, 8.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 14 of 19 Koppe nha ver op ine d that the signatur e on th e 2016 deed 74 was no t Sterc ula’s. Koppe nha ver was cros s - examined a bout an article she a uth ored for the 2015 Inter nat iona l Associa tion of Docum ent Exa min ers Jour nal where s he exp laine d recom me ndat ions for proper ha ndwr iti ng analy sis. 75 First, the ex aminer sho uld obta in suff icie nt inf orma tio n abou t the su bjec t to ena ble t he exam ine r to dra w conclus ions. 76 She admitt ed to nei ther mee ting n or inte rv iew ing Stercula about hi s signa ture or the 2016 de ed and knew nothing about hi m. 77 S econd, he r a rticl e recom me nded t hat an exam iner ha ve 2 0 to 25 r efere nce s igna ture s for com paris on. 78 Koppe nha ver ha d 11 refer ence signa tur es in t his ca se. Th ird, she wrote t hat t he compa red d ocum en ts sho uld be simi lar in n atur e. 79 She adm itte d that the do cum ent s in this c ase va rie d, inc ludin g sig natu res on check s, cour t doc ument s, an d fina ncia l docum ents. 80 Four th, she wrot e that th e exa mine r sho uld req uest orig inal exe mp lar s 74 JX 4. 75 Ms. Koppenha ver founded the International Association of Docum ent Examiners. Tr. 89-90. 76 Id. 98–99. 77 Id. 78 Id. 99. 79 Id. 101. 80 Id.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 15 of 19 for c ompar iso n. 81 She reque sted or igi nals bu t none were pr ovi ded. 82 Her art icle reflects tha t photoc opie s may be used, b ut whe n using p hoto cop ies a “condition al opinio n” shou ld be gi ven. 83 When ask ed a bout th is at tr ial, she ha d the f ollo wi ng excha nge: Q: And so is this rep ort of your s con ditio nal? A: It’s hig hly pr oba ble t hat t he si gnat ure i s not ge nui ne. Q: Tha t’s n ot wha t I aske d. I as ked if t his report of yo urs is c ondi tio nal or not. A: Bas ica lly, i n my m ind it is, ye s. Q: So y our te stim on y here toda y is c ondi tio nal as well? A: No. I t is m y pr ofess ion al op inion base d upon the writ ing tha t I had for com par ison pur poses. 84 I give Kop pen haver ’s op ini on lit tle we igh t. B y her own stan dard s she posse ssed lim ited a bili ty t o ma ke a fin din g of authe nticity. Sh e lac ks the requ isi te numbe r an d type of exempl ars. None of t he exem pla rs ex ami ned are ori gina l docum ents. As she wrote in her ar tic le, use of ph otoc opie d exe mpl ars requi res a cond itiona l opi nio n. Yet she marched forward to a n uncond itio nal finding, admit tin g that her re port was c ondi tio nal “i n my m ind” but tha t her te sti mony was 81 Id. 101–02. 82 Id. 83 Id. 102. 84 Id. 102:8–19.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 16 of 19 not c ondition al. I t is illo gica l to deriv e an unc ondition al opi nion fr om a c ondition al report. Davi d Sex ton, lik e Koppenha ver, test ified th at 20 to 25 han dwriting exem plar s in t he chro nol ogic al per iod aro und the ques tio ned s igna ture w er e neede d. 85 He note d that o nly t hree or four e xemp lar s were su bmit ted a rou nd th e 2016 time frame. Based on t he lac k of exem plar s, Sex t on f oun d tha t it was “impo ssi ble” t o dete rmi ne whe ther the q uest ione d signa tur e was au then tic or a forge ry. 86 Sext on c oncl uded that if he made a findin g under the ci rc umsta nces, “th ey would run me ou t of tow n if I did t his in the fore nsic docume nt exami nati on in t he comm unit y and m ade a n ident ifica tio n bas ed on th ree or fo ur e xempl ars c ompa red to a sam ple sign atur e.” 87 Where both expe rt s coale sce is t hat they examine d few er than a n id eal n umbe r of e xem plars nec essar y to re nde r an opinion o n the authenticity of Sterc ula ’s sig natur e on the 2016 de ed. Neit her ex pert’ s opin ion was he lpf ul in deter min ing a uthe ntic ity. C. The Notary Pu blic Con firmed t hat She Notar ized the Si gnat ure s and Followed Standard Procedures 85 Id. 212, 220. 86 Id. 221, 228; JX 8. 87 Tr. 221:14-17.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 17 of 19 Laura Roger s wa s emplo yed at th e Sea ford UP S stor e in 20 16. 88 She was a notar y pu blic c oncur re nt wit h her empl oy ment i n 20 16. 89 Althou gh th ere were no notar ial r ecord kee ping r eq uirem ent s at the time, Roge rs m ainta ine d her own proce dur es. 90 Those pr ocedu res requ ired tha t all sig ners sho w ide ntif icati on a nd t ha t all si gnat ures oc cur b efore h er. 91 She made no exce pti ons. 92 She compared each I D to the signe r sta ndi ng befo re he r. 93 If a doc ume nt wa s pre - s igne d, she requ ire d th e cust omer to re trie ve a clea n copy bef ore she would n otar ize it. 94 She wa s not f ami lia r with S terc ula or He imb ach bef ore their a ppeara nce in t he UPS st ore. 95 She confir me d that the no tar ial sig nature on the 2016 de ed was he rs. 96 D. The N otari al Pr esu mption In Krapf v. Krapf, th is Court ad her ed to the nota ria l pre sum ptio n: 88 Id. 190. 89 Id. 191. 90 Id. 191–92. 91 Id. 92 Id. 193; see D.R.E. 406 (“Evidence of a person’s habit . . . may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasi on the person. . . act ed in accordance with the habit or r outine practice.”). 93 Tr. 200. 94 Id. 193. 95 Id. 198. 96 Id. 194; JX 4. Plaintiff’s Post -Trial Op ening Brief also conceded that Rogers “undisputedly nota rized” the 2016 deed. POB at 7.

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 18 of 19 An ack now led gment of a s igna ture by a no tary g ive s ris e to a presu mpti on of t he ge nuin enes s of tha t sig natur e. Th is pre sum ptio n flow s from a notar y pub lic’s d uty, in ma kin g an ack now ledgm ent, t o deter min e that the pe rson who s igns t he do cume nt i s the pe rso n whose signa ture a ppe ars o n the d ocume nt. 2015 WL 23045 7 at *4 (Del Ch. Jan. 16, 20 15) (c ita tion om itte d). I ha ve fou nd the test imon y of Wen ger t and Hei mbac h more credi ble a nd of gre ater va lue than Sterc ula’ s. Roge rs fo llo wed her pr oce dure s, ob taine d ide ntif ica tion f rom He imb ach and Ste rcul a, com par ed tha t ide ntif icati on to the pe ople s tand ing b efore her, an d watch ed the m si gn the 2016 de ed. The signa ture s on the deed, incl udin g Sterc ula ’s, are pre sumed to be a uthe ntic. I d o no t fi nd tha t St erc ula ha s pro ven by cl ear a nd convi ncing evi dence tha t his sig nature was for g ed to overcome the notar ial presum ption. B radfor d v. Vinton, 153 A. 678, 682 (Del. C h. 1 930). Base d on my tria l ass essme nt of the pa rtie s’ credib ility an d abili ty to reca ll, I have f ound the D efe nda nts’ t esti mon y more relia ble. Even if I d isco unt the par ties ’ contra dic tor y tes timo ny and the lack of reli able exper t hand writi ng opi nio ns on Sterc ula’ s sig natur e aut hen tici ty, the not aria l pres umpt ion c ar ries t he da y. The signa ture s are pre sum ed to be ge nuine. Plain tiff ha s fa iled to pr ove by cl ear a nd convi ncing evid ence th at his si gnatur e was a fo rgery. III. CONC LUSIO N

Stercula v. Wengert, Heimbach, and Wils on C.A. No. 2022-0667- DH February 27, 2026 Page 19 of 19 For the rea sons e xpl ained a bov e, I r ule i n fav or of the D efenda nts. Hav ing ru led in Defe nda nts’ favo r, I f ind no bad fa ith or fra ud on t heir part a nd d o not a ward Plain tiff atto rney s’ fe es. Pla int iff sha ll be res pon sible for a ll cost s. This is a final report unde r Co urt of Cha ncer y Rule 144. Sincerely, /s/ D avid Hume, I V Davi d Hume, IV Magis tra te in C hanc ery cc: All c ounse l of re cor d (by F ile & Ser ve Xp ress)