Delaware Court of Chancery Land Dispute Ruling

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 Su bmitte d: Novembe r 1 4, 202 5 Date D ecide d: Mar ch 6, 2026 Josia h R. W olcott, Esqu ire. Conno lly G allagher L LP 267 Ea st Ma in Stre et Newark, DE 197 11 Zeljka Prera dovic Rade Prera dovic 5 Witha ms R oad Newark, DE 197 11 Nikola Prer adov ic 234 S outh D illwy n Road Newark, DE 197 11 RE: Joseph W.C. Mu rray, Jr., et. al. v. Nikola Pr erad ovic, et. al. C.A. No. 2023 - 0601 - LM Dear C ounse l and Pa rties: This a ction c oncer ns a disp ute be tween P lainti ff s Josep h W.C. Murr ay, Jr. and Danie lle F. Murra y, and De fendant s Nikol a Pr erado vic, Rade Prerado vic, and Ze ljka Prera dovic regar ding dis puted piece s of re al e state. Plain tiffs seek t o e stablis h righ ts to the d isput ed area s throu gh adver se pos sessio n, a pre scrip tive e asemen t, or an easement by ne cessity. Def endants a ssert t hat Pla int iff s have n o right t o the d ispute d port ion of the land and t hat th e dispu ted pro perty be lon gs to the D efenda nts. For reas ons tha t will be fully e xplain ed, the Plaint iffs prevail only as to adve rse posse ssion of the r ear por tion of the dis pute d area, and their remai ning c laims a re denie d.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 2 of 30 This i s my F i nal R ep ort. I. F ACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 This m atter arise s from a disp ute betw een J oseph W.C. M urra y, J r. and Danie lle F. Mur ray (co llect ively “P lain tif fs”), ow ners of 23 Pineda le Road i n Newark, Delawa re, and Nik ola P reradovi c, Rade Pr eradovi c, and Ze ljka Prer adovic (coll ective ly “Def endan ts”), ow ners o f 234 S outh Dil lwyn R oad, Newar k, Delaw are, conce rnin g a stri p of land al ong Ha lifax Drive th at inc ludes a stone P la nter, which has bee n des cribe d as a gar den be d surr ounde d by sto nes (“ P lante r ”). 2 A. The Disputed Are a T he disp uted sec tion co ncerns a tr iangul ar area of land situa ted betwe en the partie s’ homes. T his area i nclu des the Planter positi one d outside the w ooden pr ivac y fence of 23 Pi neda le and ex tendin g to the grass and sidewa lk betw een t he Plan ter and Hal ifax Dri ve. 3 1 The facts in this report reflect my fin dings bas ed on the record develo ped at trial. Citations to the trial transcript ar e in the form “ T r. ”. Citations to the Docket are cited in the form of “D.I. __”. The Defendants su bmitted exhibits numbe red 1 – 23 und er tabs numbered 1 – 10. Citations to the Defendants’ exhibits are cited as “DX”, with the number referring only to the exhibit, n ot the tab. The Plain tiffs submitted exhibits identifie d by tabs numbered 1 – 28. Due to many of these exhibi ts not being admi tted by the Cour t, the tabs are no longer numbered consecutively. Citatio ns to the Plai ntiffs’ exhibits are cited as “PX Ta b__”, followe d by a page or exhibit nu mber, if necessary. I grant the evidence t he weight and credibility I find it deserves. 2 D.I. 83 at 1 –2; T r. 26: 3–10. 3 Id. at 8, 10.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 3 of 30 For pur poses of this actio n, the Pla intif fs di vide the dispute d land in their arguments i nto thre e categ ories: (1) the fe nce and t he land enclos ed wit hin it, (2) the stone P la nter, and (3) the grass area loca ted betwe en the P lanter and Ha lifax Drive. 4 Altho ugh t he disp ute d land c an be desc ribed collec tive ly as a tria ngula r str ip betwe en the prope rties, these three p hysica l com pone nts hel p expla in the n ature a nd locat ion of the cla ime d encro achme nts. First, I look a t the por tion of the dis puted l and that include s the fe nce and the land i t sur rounds. Fencing in the area includ es a chain - link f ence al ong 23 4 South Dillw yn (t he Defe ndant s’ side) bounda ry and a wood en pr ivacy fe nce a long 2 3 Pineda le (t he Pla intif fs’ side). 5 The wooden fen ce has remain ed in su bstanti ally the same l ocatio n sinc e at lea st 199 8, wit h some docume nted re plac ement s in 200 7 and 4 D.I. 83 at 2. 5 T r. 1 19:4–10 (referrin g to PX T ab 7 at M196).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 4 of 30 2022. 6 Before insta llatio n of the w ooden fence, a post - and - rai l fence enclosed a wedge - shape d area a djac ent to the Pla nter along H alifa x Dri ve and th e drivewa y. 7 Second, t he Pla nter area co nsists of a stone - and - cemen t garde n bed fra med b y rough ly o ne - foo t - tall sla te st ones, a reta ining w al l that a ligns w ith an d run s benea th port ions of t he fenc e, and dr ainage pipi ng that direct s water t owar d the str eet. 8 The Plante r ’ s back s ide fo rms a str aigh t boun dary fa cing 2 34 Sou th Dillw yn, where t he stone s conn ect to the reta ining w all tha t co ntinue s ben eath the fence a nd ter mina tes at the fence li ne. Its front side cre ates a smal l bump - o ut nea r the dr ivewa y befor e curvi ng ba ck towar d the f ence, with t he visi ble s tone f eatur e ending at the fenc e line. 9 Thir d, the dispu ted ar ea cons ists of t he gra ss secti on located between the fr ont edge of the P lanter and Ha lifax D rive. 10 This narr ow str ip of la nd lie s betw een t he 6 T r. 35:19 – 37:12 (Plaintiff Danielle Murray testifying that not hing was done about the wooden fence until 2007, and that when it was re placed it w as in rough ly the sam e location); T r. 44:23 – 45:5 (Plaintiff Danielle Murray te stifying that the fence was re placed a second time in 20 22); T r. 152:9 – 153:15 (Mr. Orth testif ying tha t he had lived at 234 South Dillwyn fro m 19 77 to 2002 and for roughly six months from 20 06 to 2007, and that fence had been in roughly the same l ocation the entire time); PX T ab 9 at M0080–M0081 (All America n Fencing Company c ontract for replacemen t of the wooden fence in September of 2006); PX T ab 13 at M017 0 – M0172 (Atlant ic Landscaping Compa ny record of the wooden fence be ing replaced in 202 2). 7 T r. 1 13:17–21. 8 DX D23 at P316–P31 7; T r. 29:3–18; T r. 5: 2–4. 9 T r. 27:4–8; T r. 28:14–29:18. 10 D.I. 83 at 2.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 5 of 30 Plante r and the roa dway an d form s the outer most p ortio n of the tr iang ular are a iden tifie d by Plai ntif fs. 11 T aken toge ther, the f ence a nd e nclosed back yard ar ea, the sto ne Pla nter, and the gr ass a nd sid ewalk b etwee n the Plan ter an d Halif ax Dri ve ma ke up the tr iangu lar area t hat is t he su bject of the pa rties’ di sput e. For eas e of r efer enc e, the tri angular di sput ed ar ea descri bed ab ove is depic ted in the pho togra ph. The whi te and r ed outlin e s mark the bou ndaries of th e disput ed ar ea, wh ile the r ed li ne ex tends t owar d Ha lifax D rive a nd sep arates t he r ear porti on of t he dis pute d land fr om t he gr ass ar ea a bove the line t hat Pl ainti ff s clai m. 11 See D.I. 83 at 3 (depicting the gras s and sidewalk area as t he right - hand side of the disputed area triangle); T r. 4 3:13 – 20 (Plaint iff Danielle Murray de scribing the strip of grass area).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 6 of 30 B. The Mur rays The P lain tif fs, Jo seph a nd D anielle Mur ray, are hus band and w ife and have owne d their home a t 23 Pinedal e since Dec ember 1998. 12 The y pu rchase d the home from John a nd Bon nie Burker t (t he “Bur kerts ”) on A ugust 31, 1 998. 13 The Bur kerts purch ased 2 3 Pine dale on Ma y 16, 1980. 14 The woode n fence that w as prese nt whe n the Pla inti ffs purcha sed the ir pro pert y from the Burker ts wa s instal led by t he Burke rts. 15 Prior to the Plain tif fs movin g into t heir h ome, a s part of the sa le proc ess, a mortg age ins pecti on plan wa s create d by Zebl ey & As soci ates on Aug ust 28, 199 8. 16 The pl an de picts a w oode n fence a ssoci ated w ith 23 Pi nedal e and ind icate s that t he fenc e extended beyond th e proper ty line onto 234 South Dillwyn. 17 The wood en fence wa s in place before th e Plaint if fs purc hase d 23 Pineda le. 18 T est imony a t tria l 12 D.I. 79 at 7. 13 T r. 109:1–13. 14 T r. 109:21–1 10:1. 15 T r. 1 12:5 –1 1 3:10 (T estimony of Bonnie Burkert, wh o owned 23 Pinedale before the Plaintiffs, reflecting the wooden fe nce was put in when t hey lived the re). 16 D.I. 79 at 8. 17 Id. 18 T r. 1 12:5–1 13:10 (T estimony of Bonnie Bu rkert, who ow ned 23 Pinedale before the Plaintiffs, reflecting the wooden fe nce was put in when t hey lived the re).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 7 of 30 also re flec ted tha t an earl ier fe nce once e xten ded from behi nd the P lanter t owar d the drivew ay are a. 19 That earlier fence w as la ter rem oved b y the B urker ts. 20 The Bur kerts maintain ed the Planter whil e they li ved at 23 Pinedale be cause it ap peared t o be pa rt of t heir y ard an d was tre ate d as such duri ng their owner ship. 21 After purcha sin g the pro perty in 199 8, the Mu rra ys cont inued m aintai ning t he backy ard are a withi n the fe nce and l ands capin g around t he Pla nter in a simila r m a n n e r. 22 C. The Preradov ics The D efenda nts, the Pre radov ics, collec tively own 2 34 S ou th Dil lwyn sinc e Decembe r 2022. 23 Def end ants Zeljk a and R ade are m arrie d and resi de at 5 W ith ams Road, which i s the s treet a bove t he stre et of 23 4 Sout h Dillw yn. 24 They helpe d their son, D efen dant Ni kola, purc hase 234 So uth D illwy n, his f irst home in Dec ember 2022. 25 19 T r. 1 12:1–12. 20 T r. 1 12:1–15. 21 T r. 1 16:13–22. 22 D.I. 83 at 7–8; Tr. 56:17–58:21. 23 D.I. 79 at 7. 24 T r. 227:19–22. 25 T r. 227:23–228:3.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 8 of 30 The d isput e betwe en the part ies arose shortl y after the P rerad ovics acq uire d the pro perty. 26 At tha t time, di sagre emen ts emer ge d regard ing the triangula r strip o f land l ocate d betwe en the tw o pro pertie s, inc ludin g the area near the fenc e, the stone Plante r, and the gras s a rea extending towa rd Halif ax Driv e. 27 D. Procedural Po sture The d isput e forma lly b egan in June 2023, w hen the Mur rays f iled their Compla int and a Motio n for a TRO. 28 In the ir Com plai nt, the Murra ys a ssert ed claim s for ad verse p ossess ion, a pr escr iptive e asem ent, an d, in the a lterna tive, an easem ent by nece ssity over p orti ons of the tr iang ular are a be tween the p roper ties. 29 The Def endants disp ute the se cla ims. Defe ndant s conte nd t he Plan ter wa s over gr own and unma intain ed befo re their Decembe r 2022 pu rcha se, and that Defend ants und ertook cleaning in Dec ember 2022 – June 202 3 and on May 6 – 7, 2023; 30 they also perfor med tree wor k in the vici nity of t he di spute d prope rty bef ore t he T RO wa s entered. 31 The Mur rays con test 26 D.I. 79 at 7. 27 T r. 202:1 – 204:2 2 (the parties discussed the ar ea in March a nd May o f 2023); D.I. 79 at 8 (Plaintiffs filed suit and for a M otion for a T emporary Restraining Order in Ju ne 2023). 28 D.I. 1; D.I. 2. 29 D.I. 1 at 5–10. 30 T r. 9:4– 10:22; T r. 2 28:8 –23; T r. 229:20–230:10; T r. 247:9–20. 31 See PX T ab 7 at M191 –M192; T r. 247:9 –20; D.I. 21 (The initial T emporary Restraining Order was not ordered until September 7, 2023, well after May of 20 23).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. Nikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 9 of 30 these a ssert ions a nd rely on lon g - term mainte nance rec ords, w itnes s testi mony, and the ph ysica l place ment o f the fenc e, an d retain ing wa ll to s how thei r cont inuou s contr ol of the bac k of the Plante r. The Cour t gra nted t he TRO to pr ese rve th e stat us quo. 32 Ov er t he next year, the Co urt de nied se ver al moti ons, t hough the TRO remain ed in place. 33 The ma tter pr oceed ed to a o ne - day tr ial on O ctobe r 14, 20 25. At trial, the Court h eard te stim ony from the par ties, former neigh bors, a nd othe r witn esse s, and received docum entar y and ph otogra phic exhi bits r elat ing to th e di spute d prope rty. 34 After clos ing summations were submitt ed on Nove mber 14, 2025, the mat ter was taken un der advi seme nt. 35 II. ANAL YSIS A. Adver se Po ssessi on The ele ments o f adve rse pos sess ion are w ell - set tled. The c laima nt mus t show that it had open, n otor ious, ex clusi ve and hos tile pos sessi on of land contin uousl y for 32 D.I. 21. 33 D.I. 36; D.I. 38; D.I. 39; D.I. 55. 34 D.I. 82. 35 D.I. 83 (Plai ntiffs’ C losing Argument); D.I. 84 (Defendants’ Closing Statement); D.I. 87 (Letter from Magist rate Mitchell confi rming the recei pt of the clo sing statements a nd taking the matter under advisement).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 10 of 30 the pre scribe d perio d. 36 “Impo rtantl y . . . the burde n of pr oof for adver se pos sessio n is onl y [by] a prepo ndera nce of the e viden ce, rat her tha n [by ] clea r and c onvinc ing evidence.” 37 1. The Rear Fence, E nclosed Back yard Ar ea, and Plant er The Pla intif f s have satisfie d all re quire d ele ments f or the fence an d enclose d backya rd are a, but not the Planter. i. Open and Notorious “ Open a nd not orious means that the posse ssion m ust be p ubli c so that th e owner a nd ot hers ha ve notic e of the posse ssio n. If posses sion w as take n furti vely or secre tly, i t wou ld not be adve rse an d no ti tle pos sessio n could be ac quired. ” 38 The re cord e stab lishe s tha t the b ack p ortio n of the dis puted tria ngular stri p — runn ing alon g the wo oden pr ivac y fence a nd the re tainin g wal l at the rea r side yar d — was p ossess ed ope nly and not oriou sly fo r decad es. Mul tiple surv eys spa nning m ore than f orty y ears de pict th e 23 Pi nedal e woode n fenc e in the same e ncroac hin g locatio n ont o 234 South Dillwy n, p roviding o bjec tive, p ublic n otic e. T he Bellafante 36 See T araila v. S tevens, 1989 WL 1 10545, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sep. 18, 1 989) (citing Suplee v. Eckert, 160 A.2d 590 (Del. C h. 1960)); see also A yers v. Pave It, LLC, 2006 WL 2052377, at *2 (De l. Ch. July 1 1, 2006). 37 T umulty v. Schr eppler, 132 A.3d 4, 24 (Del. Ch. 2015) (citing A yers, 2006 WL 2052377, at *2). 38 Bogia v. Kleiner, 2019 WL 376164 7, at *10 (Del. Ch. Au g. 8, 2019) (citations omit ted).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 11 of 30 Mortg agee’ s Inspe ction Pl an (Ma y 2, 19 80; rev. O ct. 20, 1992), t he Zeb ley & Assoc iate s Mortga ge I nspecti on Pla n (Aug. 28, 19 98), an d the AES M Bo undar y Surve y Pla n (Dec. 1, 2022) e ach s how t he 23 Pine dale f ence sit uated o ver t he line onto 23 4 Sou th Dillwy n. 39 Plain tiffs a nd the ir pr edece ssor s mainta ine d a visi ble, e nclo sed ba ckyar d define d by that fe nce an d an al igned re tain ing wa ll, wi th the fence havin g bee n replaced around the same po sition in 20 07 and a gain in 2022. 40 Brett Ort h testif ied the w ooden priva cy fence bel ongin g to 23 P ineda le rem aine d in the sam e appro xima te loca tion and wa s not o bjecte d to by his fam ily. 41 Phot ograp hs and re cords show pe rsis tent backya rd im provem ents an d maint enance wi thin t he enc losed a rea a nd alo ng the reta inin g wall and fence line — flower bed s, vege tati on, pa tio ele ments, and pe t bur ials — fur th er signa lin g open, notor ious occupati on. 42 Additio nall y, land scapin g and mo wing practic es vis ibl y 39 D.I. 1 at 2 – 3, 6; PX T ab 3 at M0005 (the Franco Bellafante Associates M ortgagee’ s Inspection Plan surve y); PX T ab 2 at M000 3 (the Zebley & Assoc iates, Inc. Mort gage Inspection Plan survey); DX D2 (the American Eastcoast S urveying & Mapping Boundar y Survey Plan). 40 PX T ab 9 at M0080 –M0081 (the All American Fence Comp any agreement to replac e the wooden fence in 2006); PX T ab 13 at M0170 –M0172 (the Atlantic Landscapes Company agreement to replace the wooden f ence in 2022); Tr. 36:3–16; Tr. 44:23–45:5. 41 T r. 152:6–153: 23. 42 PX T ab 2 at M0 003; PX T ab 3 at M0 005; D.I. 1 at 3–4; see gen erally P X Ta b 7 at M0069– M0092, M01 24, M0175, M0181 –M0183 (The photographs provided by th e Plaintiffs’ exhi bit that they have ma intained varying, continuous use of t he back of the

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 12 of 30 adher ed to the r etai ning wal l line at the back of th e Planter and did not exten d behind it, un derscor ing P laintif fs’ co nsist ent tre atmen t of the fe nce and retaini ng - wall alig nment a s their boun dary of posse ssion at the re ar. 43 By cont rast, th e fron t porti on — compr ising of the stone P lanter area — lacks compa rable, con tinuo us out ward ma nifes tation s of ex clusi ve po ssessi on suff icien t to re nder t he use ope n and n otor ious. 44 Tria l tes timon y an d exhibits refle ct that, while Plai ntiffs m owe d up to the ba ck of the Pla nter and ma intai ned its side, maint enance at the fron t dimin ished ov er time a nd was n ot co ntinuou s. 45 Planter for many years. In 1998, the Plaintiffs seemed to maintain and care for the back of the Planter which wa s already insi de of the or iginal wooden priva cy fence. As shown in the 2006 photos, their use evolved into using the area to host parties and other gathering s. Their use continued to evolve in 2007, wh en the area was used for what are assumedly school projects. In 2008, the Plaintiffs continued their use by ere cting a playhouse that August in the area and by 2016 had grown a small flowerb ed and placed a beehive and small statue there. T he beehiv e and statue remained in that are a in March of 2023, evidencing continued use. T aken as a whol e, these photographs point to the Plaintiffs’ having continuously u sed the property an d treated it as t heir own f or roughly 25 year s, beyond the statutory re quirement.). 43 T r. 18:17– 20:1 (M r. Foster testify ing that he mowed up to the ba ck of the Plant er, but this does not show that the Plaintiffs continuously mow ed the area in dispute identified as the Planter). 44 See generally PX T ab 7 at M0065, M0129 – M01 42, M0180 – M0183 (Plaintiffs’ photographs of the Planter and the grass be tween the fro nt of the Planter and Halif ax Drive). 45 T r. 249:14 –25 0:7; T r. 23:4 – 7 (Defenda nt Rade Prerado vic also m owed the a rea in front of the Planter starting in December 2022); T r. 18:17 – 20:1 (Mr. Foster testifying that he mowed up to the back of the Planter); PX T ab 7 at M0 180 – M0183 (Photographs of t he area in front of the Planter from March of 2023 show a much less maintained Planter and grass in front of it).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 13 of 30 Conte mpora neou s tria l observa tio ns indica te tha t Plain tiffs st oppe d maintainin g the front area near the P lanter. 46 Defen dants at Tria l testifi ed tha t befor e Defe ndant s cleane d up the area in 20 23, d ense ve getat ion nea r the Pla nter lim ite d acces s and re duce d the vi sibil ity of P laintif fs’ cl aimed posses sion i n that s egmen t. 47 The com para tive pr oof thu s disti nguis hes the segme nts: the back p ortion ’s fixed, surve y - corr obo rated fe nce a nd alig ned re tain ing wal l, visi bly ma inta ined an d repla ced ove r de cade s, con trast s with the fr ont por tion’ s inte rmi ttent mo wing up to the P lanter and pe riods of over growt h wit hout c lear, o utwar d acts of dom inio n. 48 ii. 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. 49 “The De laware Suprem e Court previo usly. . . held t hat t he ‘un interr upted and 46 See T r. 9:4 – 9; T r. 23:4 – 7 (Defendant Rade Preradovic also mowe d the area in front of the Planter starting in December 2022); see Tr. 18:17 – 20:1 (Mr. Fo ster testifying t hat he mowed up to the back of the Planter); s ee PX T ab 7 at M018 0 – M0183 (Photographs of the area in front of the Planter from March of 2023 show a much less maintained Planter and grass in front of it); see DX D15 at P41 1, P415; P418, P419, and P420, consistently depict the disputed area — par ticularly the Planter — as being in poor, overgrown, or jungle -like condition. 47 Tr. 10:3–22; T r. 247: 9–20; PX T ab 7 at M0 180–M0183; DX D15 at P41 1, P415. 48 Compar e PX T ab 7 at M0069 – M009 2, M0124, M01 75, M0181 – M0183 (showing a visibly maintained an d improved back of the Planter and retaining wall), with PX T ab 7 at M0180– M0183 (showi ng an overgrown and not visibly maintained nor improved Planter and grass in front of it). 49 T umulty, 132 A.3d at 24.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 14 of 30 conti nuous enjoyment of land to const itut e adverse possess ion do es not r equir e the cons tant use t hereof. ”’ 50 The rec ord dem onstr ates co ntinu ous posse ssi on of the bac k porti on — n a m e l y, the area enclosed and d efined by the six - fo ot woo den pr ivac y fenc e an d the al igne d retai ning wall — for w ell over tw enty ye ars. Plain tif fs h ave li ved a t 23 P ineda le witho ut inter rupti on since Dec emb er 1, 1998, 51 and hav e continu ously m aintained both th e fenc ed yard and the fence it self d uring t hat ti me. 52 They replaced the fen ce in 2007 an d again in 2022 around the s ame locatio n as th e origin al fenc e. 53 Histor ic sur veys p lace the w oode n fence on or over the 234 Sou th Dillw yn side of the pro perty li ne in t he same l ong - standing pos ition. 54 This con siste nt, public ly vi sible b oundar y mar ker cor robora tes an u ninte rrupte d patt ern of posse ssion. 55 Plain tif fs an d their con tracto rs als o perf ormed repai rs t o the re tain in g 50 Id. (quoting Lewes T r. Co. v. Gri ndle, 170 A. 2d 280, 282 (Del. 1961)). 51 D.I. 79 at 7. 52 Id. 2. 53 Id. at 8; PX T ab 3 at M0005 (the Franco Bel lafante A ssociates Mor tgagee’ s Inspection Plan survey); PX T ab 2 at M000 3 (the Zebley & Associates, Inc. M ortgage Inspection P lan survey); DX D2 (the American Eastcoast Surv eying & Mapping Boundary Surv ey Plan). 54 D.I. 79 at 7–8. 55 See genera lly PX T ab 7 at M0067 – M0183 (The wooden fence wa s and is plainly visib le to the public and the D efendants and is sti ll present in the March 202 3 photographs).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 15 of 30 wall s upport ing the f ence — w ork the Court ad mitte d as relev ant to dem onstr ate posse ssio n and co ntrol. 56 T estimony a nd ph otogra phs show regu lar re sident ial use and mai ntena nce inside the f ence l ine for d ecade s, inc ludin g mow ing up t o the re taini ng wall, garde ning, a nd other home - imp rovem ent a ctivit ies. 57 Former ne ighbor Brett Orth corr oborate d that th e fence has remai ned i n the same loc atio n since at lea st the la te 1970s a nd tha t it was unde rsto od as be longi ng to and ma intai ned by 23 P ineda le, no t by the owner s of 234 South Di llwyn. 58 This te stimon y reinf orces th e excl usivi ty, 56 PX T ab 13 at M0170 –M0172; T r. 49: 1–21. 57 T r. 45:14– 18 (Plaintiff Danielle Murray testifying that she ma intained the flower bed inside the fence line); T r. 2 0:8 – 13 (Mr. Foster testifying that Plaintiff Danielle Murray directed where to mow and that Plai ntiffs paid him for that work); T r. 18:14 – 22 (Mr. Foster testifying that he mowed the entire back yard up to the fence line); T r. 20:21 – 21:8 (Mr. Foster clarifying on cross - exami nation that he mowed up to th e retaining wall in the backyard inside the fe nce line); see genera lly PX T ab 7 at M0069 – M009 2, M0124, M0175, M0181 – M01 83 (The photographs pro vided by the Plai ntiffs’ exhibit t hat they have maintained varying, continuous use of the bac k of the Planter for many years. In 1998, the Plaintiffs seemed to maintain and care for th e back of the Planter which was already insid e of the original wooden privacy fence. As shown in the 2006 photos, their use evolved into using the area to host parties and other gatheri ngs. Their use conti nued to evolve in 2007, when the area was used for w hat are assum edly scho ol projects. In 2008, the Plaintiffs continued their use by erecting a playhouse th at August in the area an d by 2016 had grown a small flowerbed and placed a beehi ve and small statue there. Th e beehive and statue remained in that area in March of 2023, evi dencing continue d use. T aken as a whole, these photographs point to Plaintiffs’ having continu ously used the property and treated it as their own for roughly 25 yea rs, beyond the stat utory requirement.). 58 T r. 152:24–153:1 5; Tr. 87:17–89:8 (Plaint iff Danielle Murray testif ying that the Orths had told Plaintiffs that the fence line had bee n established in the 1960 s and 1970s).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 16 of 30 visib ility, and c ontin uity of P lain tif fs’ posse ssion of the back po rtion of th e dispu ted land. Desp ite the a bove, t he evide nce d oes not e stab lish twe nty year s of co ntinu ous posse ssion of the f ront grass po rtion of the Plant er. 59 Defe ndants credib ly testif ie d that w hen the y purc hase d 234 So uth Di llwyn i n Decem ber 2 022, t he Pla nter and surro undin g fron t area a ppeare d over grown a nd jungle - like. 60 Th ey und ertook clea nup and tre e - cutting a round th e Pla nter in May 2023. 61 Photograp hs and test imony r efere ncing su bstan tial ivy a nd ac cumula ted ve getati on sup port the ir account. 62 Additi onally, main tena nce of the Plante r occurre d “up to the back of th e Plante r,” but “not be hin d the Planter,” meaning not in to the street - fac ing fr ontage that for ms the d ispu ted por tion. 63 This line of main tena nce ref lects a practica l bound ary sh ort of the entire front area. 64 Plaintif fs ac knowl edge d that ivy f rom th e 59 See generally PX T ab 7 at M0180 – M0183 (Plaintiffs failed to adequately sh ow continuous possession since at lea st March of 2023, as these p hotographs sho w an overgrown and unmaintained Planter and t he grass in fron t of it.). 60 Id.; Tr. 9:4–9. 61 D.I. 21 (T he initial T emporary R estraining Order was n ot ordered until September 7, 2023, well after May o f 2023.); T r. 235:9–21; T r. 247: 7–248:13; T r. 9:4–1 1:18. 62 DX D15 at P415; DX D15 at P 4 11. 63 Tr. 43:16–20; T r. 19:12–20:1. 64 T r. 43:16–20; T r. 1 8: 23–20:1.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 17 of 30 Plante r coul d make the f ront lo ok “a lit tle w ild,” and im age s from 202 3 show iv y, branc hes, a nd debr is alo ng the front side, r at her than continu ous main tenan ce. On thi s rec ord, Pl aintif fs have not me t the ir bur den to show contin uous posse ssio n of the front por tion for the statu tory per iod. iii. Exclu sive U se “The e xclu sivit y elemen t doe s not req uire a bsolute exc lusivit y. ‘Excl usiv e 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.’ ” 65 The bac k por tion of t he dis puted proper ty, enc losed b y the wo oden fe nce a nd alig ned wit h the r etai ning wa ll, wa s exclu sive ly po ssessed by th e Murr ays. 66 This area w as c onsis tently maint aine d and im pro ved by the P laintif fs, who e xer cised c lear 65 See T umulty, 132 A.3 d at 2 6 (quoting W alk er v. Five N. Co rp., 2007 WL 2473278, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. A ug. 31, 2007)). 66 S ee generally P X T ab 7 at M0 069 – M009 2, M0124, M0175, M 0181 – M0183 (The photographs provided by the P laintiffs’ exhibit that they have maintained varying, continuous use of the back of th e Planter for many years. In 1998, the Plaintif fs see med to maintain and care for the back of the P lanter which was already i nside of the original wooden privacy fence. As shown in t he 2006 photos, their u se evolv ed into using the area to host parties and ot her gathering s. Their use continue d to evolve in 2007, wh en the area was used for what are assumedly school proj ects. In 2008, the Plai ntiffs continued their use by erecting a playhouse that A ugust in the area and by 201 6 had grown a small flowerbed and placed a beehive and small stat ue there. The bee hive and statue re mained in that area in March of 2023, evi dencing continued use. T aken as a whole, these photographs point to Plaintiffs’ having continu ously used the property and treated it as their own for roughly 25 yea rs, beyond the stat utory requirement.).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 18 of 30 domi nion o ver it b y repla cin g the fe nce an d con ducti ng reg ular la ndscap ing activ itie s. The prese nce of t he fe nce, wh ich ha s been i n place since a t lea st 1980, serve d as a physic al barr ier tha t deline ated the Murray s ’ cont rol and excluded other s. 67 T est imony and pho togr aphic evidenc e con firm t hat th e Mu rrays treat ed this area a s an i ntegra l par t of the ir bac kyar d, reinf orci ng the ir exc lusive use a nd appro pria tion of the l and for their benef it. 68 In contr ast, the Planter was not ex clus ively posses sed by the Plaintif fs. 69 Evide nce sugg est s tha t mainten ance of this area wa s sporad ic, with period s of over gr owth a nd limi ted ac tivity. 70 The Pla nter w as acce ssible from bo th pro pertie s, and testim ony from nei ghbor s and the Defend ants h ighli ghted th at th e area was not 67 D.I. 79 at 7–8; T r. 152:24–153: 15; T r. 87:1 7 –89:8; see also PX T ab 7 at M012 4 (This photograph depicts 23 2 S outh Dillwyn and t he fence from Plaintiffs’ backyard, showing that the fence physically separated the t wo propert ies and e xcluded Defendants fr om Plaintiffs’ backyard area within th e fence.). 68 D.I. 79 at 7–8; see generally PX T ab 7 at M0069– M0092, M0 124, M0175, M01 81 – M0183 (These photographs depict Plaintiffs’ varied uses of the fenced - in backyard area over the years including for parties, what is assumedly a school proj ect, and as a flower bed. Thes e uses show that Plain tiffs have appropriated this lan d for their benefit and use, and not for others’ use. The photographs also depict landscapin g within the fe nced area, including the planting and maintenance of a Japanese maple tree, further evidencin g Plaintiffs’ treatment of the area as pa rt of their yard.). 69 See generally PX T ab 7 at M0180 – M01 83 (showing an overgrown Planter area); se e also T r. 248:6 –8; see also T r. 249:9–25 0:6. 70 Compar e PX T ab 7 at M0069 – M009 2, M0124, M01 75, M0181 – M0183 (showing a visibly maintained an d improved back of the Planter and retaining wall), with PX T ab 7 at M0180– M0183 (showi ng an overgrown and not visibly maintained nor improved Planter and grass in front of it).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 19 of 30 cons istent ly ma intain ed. 71 Conse quentl y, the Plaint iff s faile d to demons trate t he nece ssary e xclusi ve dom inio n over the front p ortion to satis fy the exc lus ivit y requir eme nt for a dver se posse ssion. 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 wi th the righ ts of t he tr ue ow ner, as if the a dver se pos sessor owns the proper ty.” 72 The Murrays’ action s rega rdin g the bac k por tion of the p roper ty ill ustrate this princ iple. They c onsis tently m ainta ined an d impr ove d the area withi n the fence, trea ting i t as their ow n wit hout see kin g permis sion fr om the “ tr ue ” owne r. 73 This co nduct re flect s their be lief in owner ship an d is supp orted by the lac k of any ob jecti on or asse rtion of tit le by pri or owne rs befor e 2014. 74 The Murray’ s longstand ing u se an d t radition of main taini ng the back fe nced area rei nforce s the ir adv erse c laim to the pr oper ty. 75 71 T r. 248:6–8; T r. 249:9–250:6; T r. 9:4–9; T r. 10:9–14. 72 Bear d v. Davis, 20 24 WL 357998, at *4 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 202 4) (quoting 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession § 6 2 (2025). 73 See generally PX T ab 7 at M0069 – M0092, M0124, M0175, M01 81 – M0183 (de picting Plaintiffs’ varied uses of the fenced - in backyard area over the ye ars); T r. 87:17 –89:8 (Plaintiff Danielle Murray testif ied that she does not recall having a conversation over whether there had been consent given regard ing the fence encroachment.); T r. 170:5 – 10 (Mr. Orth tes tified that he does not recall if his parents gave conse nt to the former owner s or Plaintiffs for the fence encroachm ent). 74 T r. 88:22–89:8; T r. 1 70:5 –10. 75 See generally PX T ab 7 at M0069 – M0092, M0124, M0175, M01 81 – M0183 (de picting Plaintiffs’ varied us es of the fenced - in backyard area over t he years); T r. 153:12 – 23 (Mr. Orth testified that as long as he can remem ber, the fence belonged to and was maintai ned

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 20 of 30 In contr ast, the front por tion, does not de mons trate the same l evel of ho stile use. 76 Evide nce and te stim ony show that the front are a was acc essib le to othe rs and not excl usive ly used by th e Murra ys in a manner tha t would in dicate ow ners hip. 77 Thus, the C ourt a ward s Plaint if fs the back portion of the disp uted la nd thro ugh adver se poss essi on. Ho wever, Plai ntif fs h ave no t proved t he re quired e leme nts o f adver se poss essio n for the Plant er area. 2. The Grass A re a Bet ween th e Plan ter and Halif ax Dri ve Plain tif fs also se ek to esta bli sh adver se posse ssio n over the na rrow str ip of grass locate d betw een the fro nt edge of the Pla nter and Hal ifax D rive. 78 This por tio n of the dispu ted are a lies o utsid e the e nclo sed bac kyar d and ext end s toward the roadw ay, for ming t he oute rmost secti on of the tria ngu lar are a ident ified by Pla intif f s. Altho ugh P laint iff s con tend t hat t hey ma intai ned t his p ortion of the proper ty fo r many y ears, the rec ord d oes not esta blish the e lement s nece ssar y to su pport a c laim of adve rse p osses sion over thi s area. As disc uss ed abo ve, a party c laim ing t itle thr ough a dver se po ssess ion mus t prove tha t its posses sion of the d ispute d la nd was ope n, not orio us, exc lusive, hos tile, by the owner s of 23 Pi nedale Road, including Plaintiffs. He had liv ed in the home from roughly 1977 to 2002, and Plaintiffs purchased the proper ty in late 1 998.). 76 T r. 10:9–16. 77 T r. 248:6–8; T r. 249:9–250:6; T r. 9:4–9; T r. 10:9–14. 78 D.I. 83 at 3.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 21 of 30 and cont inuous for the statut ory pe riod. 79 These e lement s must be s hown thro ugh cond uct tha t clear ly sig nals tha t the c laima nt is a ssert ing dom inion over t he land a s its own. Ro utine or inci dental a cts of m ainte nance, part icu larly in a reas t hat rem ain open to pu blic view or public ac cess, ge nera lly do not sat isfy thi s standa rd. 80 At tr ial, Pla int iff s prese nted e vide nce t hat the y peri odica lly mow ed t he gra ss in the area betw een the Pla nter a nd Ha lifa x Driv e. 81 T estimony fr om Pla intif fs ’ lawn - care provi der si milarl y indica ted tha t mowi ng exten ded to portio ns of the grass near the P lanter and towar d the s treet. 82 While this evi dence de mons trates t ha t Plain tif fs perf orme d some maint enan ce in th is are a, tho se acti vities are not suffici ent to est ablis h the ty pe o f posses sion r equire d for adver se pos sessio n. 83 79 See T araila v. Stevens, 1989 WL 1 10545, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sep. 18, 1 989) (citing Suplee v. Eckert, 160 A.2d 590 (Del. C h. 1960)); see also A yers v. Pave It, LLC, 2006 WL 2052377, at *2 (De l. Ch. July 1 1, 2006). 80 Ocea n Baltimor e, LL C v. C elebration M all, LLC, 2021 WL 190637 4, at *8 n.107 (Del. Ch. May 12, 2021). 81 T r. 249:14 – 25 0:7; T r. 23:4 – 7 (Defenda nt Rad e Preradovic al so mow ed the area in front of the Planter starting in December 2 022); T r. 18:17 – 20: 1 (Mr. Fos ter testifying that he mowed up to the back of the Planter); PX T a b 7 at M0180 – M 0183 (Photograp hs of t he area in front of the Planter from March of 2023 show a much less maintained Planter and grass in front of it). 82 T r. 19:9–14. 83 T r. 249:14 – 25 0:7; T r. 23:4 – 7 (Defenda nt Rad e Preradovic al so mow ed the area in front of the Planter starting in December 2 022); T r. 18:17 – 20: 1 (Mr. Fos ter testifying that he mowed up to the back of the Planter); PX T a b 7 at M0180 – M 0183 (Photograp hs of the area in front of the Planter from March of 2023 show a much less maintained Planter and grass in front of it).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 22 of 30 Additi onally, Plain tif fs ’ activ itie s in this a rea do no t clear ly est ablish h ostil e posse ssion under a clai m of rig ht. Although Plain tif fs test ify that th ey mowe d that port ion of t he gras s when they m owe d their ow n, m ow ing gra ss is mor e like an ordi nary ac t of ne ighbor hood u pkee p. Such ac tivit y d oes no t commun icate an asser tion of owner ship ov er the underl ying la nd. 84 T esti mony and photog raphs show that the fr ont are a rem aine d open, som etimes over grown, a nd was used or access ed by Def enda nts. 85 Shar ed and c asua l use o f land does n ot sat isfy t he exc lusi vit y requir eme nt and i nste ad supp orts a n infer ence of perm issi ve use. T aken toge ther, the evide nce re gardin g mow ing ma intena nce do es not demon stra te tha t Plain tif fs pos sesse d thi s strip o f lan d in a m anner t hat wa s suf fic ientl y excl usive, hostil e, an d notor ious to sati sfy t he req uireme nts of a dver se posse ssion. In stead, the c onduc t ref lecte d on the rec ord is more con sist ent with 84 Photographic exhibits such as DX D5 a t P39, DX D6 at P20, a nd DX D15 at P41 1, P418, P419, and P420, consis tently depict the disput ed area — particul arly t he Planter — as bein g in poor, over grown, or jungle - like con dition. These visuals corroborate testimony such as T r. 24 8:6 – 250:6, which shows that at various t imes up to and including 2022 and 202 3, the area was unmaintained, inaccessible, a nd rife with o vergrowth. This evidenc e directly rebuts the exclusive and continuous main tenance argued by Plaintiffs. 85 PX T ab 7 at M0 180 – M0183 (s howing an overgrown and not visibly maintai ned nor improved Planter and grass in front of it); Photographic exhibits su ch as DX D5 at P39, DX D6 at P20, a nd DX D15 at P41 1, P41 8, P41 9, and P420, consistentl y depict the disputed area as being in poor, overgrown, or jungle - like condition. These visuals corroborate testimony such as T r. 2 48:6 – 250:6, which sh ows that at various time s up to and including 2022 and 2023, the area was u nmaintained, inaccessible, and rife wi th overgrowth. This evidence directly rebut s the exclusive and continuous ma intenance argued by Plaintiffs.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 23 of 30 rout ine ma intena nce perform ed b y a hom eowne r alo ng the fro ntage of a re sident ia l proper ty. There fore, the Pla intif f s did not a dverse ly pos sess thi s secti on of the dispu ted la nd. B. Prescriptive Ease ment To as sert a claim for a presc ript ive ea sement, Cla iman ts must show that t hey used t he pro perty: “ (i) ope nly, (ii) no toriou sly (i ii) exc lusiv ely and (iv) a dverse ly to the rig hts of others f or an uni nterr upted perio d of twent y (20) ye ars. ” 86 All elemen ts must be pro ved by c lear a nd con vinci ng e vidence, whic h is a higher stan dard t han the pr ior c laim of ad verse posses sion which r equir es a p rep ondera nce o f the evide nce. 87 Gener ally, De laware disfavor s claim s for p resc ripti ve e asements. 88 The use of a presc ripti ve easement “ mu st be so ope n, visible, and appa ren t t hat it gives the owner of t he ser vient ten e ment kno wledge an d f ull opportun ity to as se rt his or her rig hts. ” 89 “As this co urt h as expla ine d, t he la tter pron g of th e t est in clude s a du ty to prove by clear and con vinc ing e vidence that the use w as not permiss ive. ” 90 Th at 86 Dewey Be ach Lions Club, Inc. v. Longa necker, 905 A.2d 128, 134 (Del. Ch. 2006) (citing A yers, 2006 WL 2 052377, at *2). 87 See id. 88 See id. 89 Id. at 135 (quoting 25 A M. J UR. 2 D Easements and Licenses § 53 (2025)). 90 Id.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 24 of 30 burde n, which Delaware law appli es to all p rescript ive ease ments, is espec ially appro pria te where a litigan t cl aim s a prescri ptive rig ht ove r a neighbo r’s roadw ay or path. 91 “ Part of the logi c behind this enh ance d scruti ny is sim ply that land left ope n to be u sed by the pu blic for the convenie nce of th e lan downer should not be inde finite ly burdene d by a pre scriptiv e easement, which o ur law disfa vors, simply because the landowner h as not taken the active step of granting use rs of the lan d expre ss perm issio n.” 92 Furthe r, “neig hborly or friend ly use of land, wheth er a roa dway, open land, or other wise, does no t es tabl ish an adverse use.” 93 “S imp ly put, taking n eighbor ly acquiescenc e for the kind of laxity req ui red fo r th e establ ishme nt of a prescr iptiv e easement is not a rule in acc ord an ce with the law of this sta te.” 94 First, the r ecord does n ot dem onstra te a dversi ty. The evidenc e reflects, at most, tolera nce of Plain tif fs’ trimm ing or incide ntal c ontac t with the fro nt of t he Plante r — not a hos tile or clai m - of - rig ht use that wo uld pu t the serv ient ow ner on 91 Id. 92 Id. 93 Id. at 136 (citing Br own v. Hou. V entur es, LLC, 2003 WL 136181, at *6 n. 30 (Del. Ch. Jan. 3, 2003)). 94 Id.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 25 of 30 notic e. 95 Nothing i n the re cord sh ows a c lear re pudiat ion of permi ssion or an y asser tion of a rig ht to co ntrol t he stre et - fa cing port ion of the Planter. The sa me rea sonin g appli es to the gra ss area locat ed betwe en the Pla nter an d Halifa x Dri ve. 96 Any mow ing of th e grass b y Plain tif fs ref lect s routin e upke ep rathe r than an assert ion of d ominio n over t he land itse lf. Such activit ies are consist ent with ordi nary resi dent ial mai ntena nce and do n ot commu nicat e a hosti le claim of right to the unde rlyi ng proper ty. Second, the evi dence do es not establish e xclusi ve use. T estimony and photo grap hs show that the fr ont a rea r emai ned ope n, ov er grow n, and used o r 95 Photographic exhibits such as D X D5 at P39, DX D6 at P20, a nd DX D15 at P41 1, P4 18, P419, and P420, consis tently depict the disput ed area — particul arly the Planter— as being in poor, over grown, or jungle - like con dition. These visuals corroborate testimony such as T r. 24 8:6 – 250:6, which shows that at various t imes up to and including 2022 and 202 3, the area was unmaintained, inaccessible, a nd rife with o vergrowth. This evidenc e directly rebuts the exclusive and continuous main tenance argued by Plaintiffs. 96 See generally PX T ab 7 at M0180 – M0183 (Plaintiffs failed to adequately sh ow continuous possession since at lea st March of 2023, as these p hotographs sho w an overgrown and unmain tained Planter and the grass in front of it.); Photographic exhi bits such as DX D5 at P39, DX D6 at P20, and DX D15 at P41 1, P4 18, P419, and P42 0, consistently depict the disputed area a s being in poor, over grown, or jungle - like condition. These visuals corrobor ate testimony such as T r. 248:6 – 2 50:6, which s hows that at various times up to and including 2022 and 2 023, the area was unma intained, inaccessible, a nd rife with overgrowth. This evidence directly rebuts the exclusive and continuous maintenance argued by Plaintif fs.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 26 of 30 accessed by Defendants. 97 Share d or casual u se of land, do es not sa tisfy the exclu sivit y req uireme nt an d instea d supp orts a n infer ence of per missive use. Thir d, Plai ntif fs have not pr oven o pen a nd not oriou s cond uct suf ficie nt to notif y a r easonabl e owner o f a hos tile claim. T he inter mitte nt acti vit ies like sporad ic trimm ing an d mow ing that stoppe d at th e back of t he Pla nter falls s hort of the typ e of visi ble ass ertion of domini on nee ded to mee t the sta ndar d. 98 T he e vid ence regar ding the main tenance of th e front grass area l ikewi se refl ects o nly in termit tent maint enance ac tivit ies ra ther tha n t he cont inuou s an d exclu sive use re quire d to establ ish a prescrip tive ea sement. 99 Fourth, Pl aintiffs cannot sho w an uninter rupte d twenty - year per iod o f quali fying us e. The front po rtion’ s conditi on — overgrown, unma naged, and 97 Tr. 10:9 –14; Tr. 1 1:19–12:3; see PX T ab 7 at M0180 – M0183 (sh owing an overgrown and not visibly maintai ned nor improved Planter and the gr ass in fron t of it). 98 See PX T ab 7 at M0069 – M0092, M0 124, M0175, M0181 – M 0183 (photogra phs showing varied, contin uous use of t he propert y from 1998 until March of 20 23); see also DX D15 at P41 1, P415 (These photographs fu rther show that, at the very most, Plaintiffs casually maintained the Planter and it oft en became overgrown. Casual, sporadic maintenance of s uch an open, visible, and easily accessible space can so metimes be considered insufficiently open and notorio us.). 99 Although Plaintiffs presented testimony that M r. Foster performed landscap ing maintenance in the area, the photographic record does n ot demonstrat e continuous upk eep. See generally PX T ab 7 at M0180 – M0183 (P laintiffs failed to adequately sho w continuo us possession since at least March of 2023, as t hese photographs sho w an overgrown and unmaintained Planter a nd the grass in front o f it.). Th ese visuals corroborate testimony such as T r. 248:6 – 250: 6, which sh ows that at various times up to a nd includ ing 2022 and 2023, the area was un maintained, inaccess ible, and rife w ith overgrowth. This ev idence directly rebuts the excl usive and continuo us maintenance argued by Plaintiffs.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 27 of 30 perio dica lly clea ned or cu t back b y Defen dants only a fter t heir 20 22 purc hase — demon stra tes brea ks in a ny claim ed pat tern an d confi rms tha t Plai ntif fs di d not exerc ise c ontin uous dom inio n over the area. 100 Becau se Pla intif fs fai led to e stab lish co ntin uity, adv ersi ty, and exclusivity for the fr ont por tion un der the ir adver se - poss essi on theor y, they li kewise fail to m eet th e same eleme nts for a p rescriptive ea sement. Accord ingly, Plaint if fs have not carr ied their b urden t o prove a pre scri ptive ea sement o ver the fr ont of the Plant er and over the gra ss area between th e Pla nter and Halifax Drive. C. Easement b y Necessity “An ea seme nt by n eces sity i s an eas ement c rea ted by t he pre sumpti on tha t where a landowner subdi vide s his prop erty to create a landl ocked parcel, without creat ing some acces s to tha t parcel, the la ndow ner is pre sumed t o have in tended a n easement to prov ide access acro ss the non - land locke d (serv ient) pa rcel to t he land locked (domin ant) parcel.” 101 N ece ssity is asses sed “ at the tim e of severance.” 102 Further, “an easem ent of n ecess ity is a form of implie d easeme nt, 100 Photo graphic exhibi ts such a s DX D5 a t P39, DX D6 at P20, an d DX D15 at P41 1, P418, P419, and P420, consistentl y depict the disputed area — particularly the Planter—a s being in poor, over gro wn, or jungle - like con dition. This evidence directly rebuts the exclusive and continuo us maintenance argued by Plaintiffs. 101 Muchille v. Bechtol, 2 025 WL 1835977, at * 3 (Del. Ch. July 3, 2025) (quoting D ewey Beach Lions Club, Inc., 2006 WL 701980, at *2). 102 Id. (quoting Harris v. Limon -Nunez, 2021 WL 8741647, at *6 (Del. Ch. Oct. 22, 2021)).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 28 of 30 since necess ity (like the e xiste nce of a quasi – easem ent) al lows a court t o infer that the gra ntor inte nded t o reserve access. ” 103 “ While the conc epts a re rela ted, ‘ an e asemen t by nece ssity [is ] a naly tically disti nct fr om an im plie d ease ment a risi ng from a pree xisti ng use. ” 104 The Court cont inued t hat “[i]f a lan downer landlo cks one parce l by co nveyin g ano ther, an easem ent of n ecess ity w ill arise ac ross t he con veye d land, e ven if no quasi – easem ent exis ted. ” 105 Add itional ly, “[t] his neces sity i s asse ssed ‘ at t he time of th e severance. ’” 106 “ In esse nce, it is pr esume d that the pa rtie s inten ded a way - of - access to the d omina nt tene ment ov er the se rvie nt tene ment be cause it is unli kely t hat anyo ne wou ld purc hase land t o whic h ther e is no access. ” 107 “ The burde n of pr oof is on t he pr opone nt to s how a n abs olute neces sity a s of t he tim e the parce ls wer e separ ated. ” 108 Finally, “[t] he sc ope of a n easeme nt of nec essit y woul d norma lly be that re quir ed to pr ovi de reas onab le acce ss to th e bene fitte d parc el.” 109 103 Judge v. Rago, 570 A.2d 253, 258 n.4 (Del. 1990) (citi ng Pencader Assocs., Inc. v. Glasgow T r., 44 6 A.2d 1097, 109 9–1 100 (Del. 1982)). 104 Harris, 2021 WL 8741647, at *6 (quoti ng Judge, 570 A.2d 253, 258 n.4 (Del. 1 990)). 105 Id. (citing Judge, 570 A.2d at 258 (Del. 1 990)). 106 Id. 107 Id. (citing Penca der Assocs., Inc. v. Glasgo w T r., 446 A.2d 1097 at 1099 – 1 100(Del. 1982)). 108 Id. (citing Dewey Beach Lions Club, Inc. v. L onganecker, 2006 WL 701980, at *2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2006). 109 Id. (citing Larsen v. Lobiondo, 1 994 WL 305 38, at *8 (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 1994).

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 29 of 30 As an alternati ve cause of action, the Pla inti f fs claim a n eas ement by nece ssity over the Defen dants ’ proper ty. Howe ver, the e vide nce doe s n ot sup port th is cla im. Histor ica l recor ds and s urve ys, inc ludi ng the B ella fante Plan a nd Zeb ley Pl an, sh ow that 2 3 Pineda le has alw ays ha d direct access to public roads, n egati ng the cla im of bein g landl ocke d. 110 T estimony f rom prior ow ners, such a s Bre tt Orth, confir me d that ac cess t o 23 Pi nedal e was ne ver obstr ucte d and t hat the proper ty wa s not land locked at the t ime of any se vera nce. 111 Moreover, aer ial photo graphs illust rate clear a ccess ro utes to the pr opert y, further underm inin g the necess ity cla im. 112 The fact s do not sup port th at Plain tif fs have a neces sity for acce ss across the D efenda nts ’ land. Therefore, the disputed ar ea of the Pla nter and the na rrow st rip of gras s betwe en th e Plan ter and H alif ax Driv e, does not provi de the sole or nece ssary m eans of in gress or egre ss to P laint iff s’ proper ty. Given t he lac k of ev idenc e supp orting a land locked c ond ition and the pr esenc e of e xisti ng acce ss ro utes, t he Plai ntif fs ar e no t 110 PX T ab 3 at M0005 (the Franco Bellafante Associates Mortg agee’ s Inspecti on Plan survey); PX T ab 2 at M000 3 (the Zebley & Associates, Inc. Mortg age Inspection Plan survey); DX D2 (the American Eastcoast Surveying & Mapping Bo undary Survey Plan); T r. 43:9 – 1 5 (describin g the location of the Planter relativ e to the road); T r. 67:1 – 18 (Plaintiff Danielle Murray alleging how Plaintiffs’ access to their driveway would be cut off); T r. 96:10 – 97:1 1; T r. 1 15:6–19. 111 T r. 13:9–13; T r. 96: 18–97:1 1. 112 PX T ab 7 at M214.

Joseph W.C. Mur ray, Jr., et al. v. N ikola Pr eradovic, et al. C.A. No. 2023-0601- LM March 6, 2026 Page 30 of 30 enti tled to a n easeme nt by nece ssity over t he front of the Pla nter or over the gras s area adjacen t to Halifax Dri ve. III. CONCLUSI ON For the reas ons sta ted her ein, I find th at the Pl aint iff s have not esta blis hed adver se po ssessi on of the Planter area or the front gra ss port ion of the di spute d area beca use the e vid ence does no t dem onstra te exc lusive, co ntinu ous, or host ile use f or the st atutor y peri od. By c ontra st, Plaintiffs have pr oven a dvers e posse ssion of the back p orti on. T he Plaint iffs are n ot ent itle d to an ea semen t by nec essit y. T he Plain tif fs ha ve not m et t heir bur den to e stab lish a pre scr iptiv e ease ment, as the rec ord lacks c lear and con vinci ng evi dence. Finall y, the Court denie s the re ques t that t he Mur rays be orde red to pay re nt of $1, 500 per ye ar for th eir occu panc y of the d ispute d land. The Cour t find s no enfor ceab le agree me nt of re nt betwe en the partie s and n o just ifia ble rea son to crea te one u nder t hese circ umsta nces. Acc ordin gly, the De fen dant’ s requ est for r ent i s there fore d enie d. This i s my F i nal R epo rt, an d exce ptio ns may b e file d unde r Co urt of C hancer y Rule 1 44. Respe ctful ly subm itted, /s/ Lor en Mitc hell Magis trate i n Chan cer y