DE Court of Chancery Opinions

Stonebridge Townhomes Owner's Association v. Ptoomey - Adverse Possession Dispute

The Delaware Court of Chancery issued a final report in the dispute between Stonebridge Townhomes Owner's Association and homeowners Mark and Martha Ptoomey. The court ruled against the homeowners' adverse possession claim, finding they failed to meet their burden of proof and ordering the contested area returned to the association at the homeowners' expense.

Delaware Court of Chancery Denies Expert Opinion Motions

The Delaware Court of Chancery denied three out of four motions in limine seeking to exclude expert opinions in the In re Saama Technologies Litigation (C.A. No. 2022-1045-LWW). A decision on the fourth motion was deferred. The court found that challenges to expert methodologies and data could be addressed during cross-examination.

Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion on No Surprises Act

The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a case seeking to enforce arbitration awards under the No Surprises Act, ruling that the Act does not contain an implied private right of action. The court followed federal precedent in declining to create such a right, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.

Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion on Exceptions

The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion on exceptions to a Magistrate in Chancery's report concerning a books and records action. The case involves a dispute over anti-dilution protections for an investment in Outlander Gamma 5.2, LLC.

Jiang v. Haslet Park Homeowners Association - HOA Window Installation Dispute

The Delaware Court of Chancery issued a final report regarding a dispute between homeowner Kun Jiang and the Haslet Park Homeowners Association over unapproved window installations and HOA election challenges. The court ruled partially in favor of Jiang and partially in favor of the HOA, addressing fines and recoupment of legal fees.

Delaware Court of Chancery Opinion on Fitracks Order

The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion resolving disputes regarding the terms of the Fitracks Order, which governs the payment of advancement and fees-on-fees in litigation. The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposed language for certain provisions and rejected defendants' proposals, clarifying the scope and application of the order.