allowing

Seizure Of Vacant Lot

and notorious, hostile, and adverse, and exclusive use of the Property by Defendant, and actual and continuous possession of the Property by Defendant, for the twenty-year statutory adverse possession period, and finding no assertion of ownership or control by Plaintiffs during that period, I quiet title to the Property in Defendant,” the ruling declares.

time later filed a counterclaim invoking the Adverse Possession statute to gain legal rights to become the owner of the property in question. The ruling describes the property as an unimproved wooded lot consisting of “mature, densely foliated woodlands.”

The judge’s ruling says he decided in favor of Schrock because she met the criteria for invoking Adverse Possession, which includes occupying or using the property for at least 20 years continuously and doing so in an open and “notorious” way without objection from the owner.

“The matter was tried before me on Dec. 7, 2022, and I visited the property for a visual inspection on Dec. 8, 2022,” Karsnitz says in his ruling. “I asked the parties to submit their closing arguments in writing, which they both did on Dec. 20, 2022, the ruling continues.

“This is my decision after trial,” the judge states. “Because by a preponderance of the evidence I find open

“I also deny Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Ejectment,” it says. The ruling also states that Banks and Barrett testified at the trial that Banks’ father had installed a saw mill on the property in the early 2000s and used the saw mill before he died in 2004. It says the couple also testified that they visited the property periodically over the years and never observed anyone else using the property, but they acknowledged they never placed a no-trespassing sign on the property or introduced themselves as the owner to any of their neighbors.

“There was no evidence that Plaintiffs used the Property as their own or sought to exclude Defendant from her use of the Property,” Karsnitz says in his ruling. “I therefore give Defendant’s testimony and other evidence more weight than that of Plaintiffs on this element,” the ruling states.

Banks told the Blade that he and his husband, whose main residence is in Atlanta, may not be able to afford at this time the cost of appealing the ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court. But he said the couple hopes the loss of their property will serve as a warning to others who buy property in the Rehoboth Beach area.

“We are meeting with our trial attorney this week and hopefully he can provide some guidance,” Banks said.