Everett v. Rowe
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JEFFREY EVERETT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. KAREN ROWE and RICHARD ROWE, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 57, 2002 Court Below Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County in C.A. No. 1967-S. Submitted: October 31, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002 Before WALSH, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 16th day of December 2002, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellees motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant and the appellees were neighbors near Seaford, Delaware.1 The record reflects that the appellees, Richard Rowe and Karen Rowe, filed a verified complaint in the Court of Chancery for a preliminary and permanent injunction and for an order to quiet title. The complaint alleged that the appellant, Jeffrey Everett, had blocked access to the Rowes driveway that 1 It appears from the record that the appellant may no longer reside in Delaware. traveled over a small part of Everett s land and then onto a public road. The Rowes claimed that they were entitled to an easement by prescription across the blocked portion of Everett s land that was formerly occupied by their driveway, and they sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. (2) By order dated January 8, 2002, the Court of Chancery found that the Rowes had produced sufficient evidence to support a finding that they were entitled to a prescriptive easement that protected their right to use the portion of their driveway that extended onto Everett s land. Moreover, the Court permanently enjoined Everett, his heirs, successors, and assigns2, from interfering with the use of the prescriptive easement.3 This appeal followed. (3) In his opening brief on appeal, Everett argues that the Court of Chancery erred when granting the Rowes motion for summary judgment and their request for a permanent injunction. First, Everett argues that the Rowes did not produce clear and convincing evidence of an easement. Alternatively, 2 The appellant was the named defendant in the complaint and was the owner of the property when the suit commenced in January 1999. A year later, the appellant quit-claimed the property to an entity known as International Interfaith, Ministries, Inc., which soon thereafter attempted to quit-claim the property to an entity known as Good Faith Ministries. Court of Chancery Rule 25(c) provides that [i]n case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party. 3 The Court of Chancery s January 8 order also confirmed a Master s final report dated December 20, 2001, that determined the specific location of the easement, as based upon a survey and metes and bounds description. 2 to the extent there was an easement, Everett argues that the easement was abandoned for a period of time and thus extinguished. Moreover, Everett contends that the Court of Chancery erred when determining the dimensions and location of the easement. Next, Everett argues that the Court of Chancery abused its discretion when granting a permanent injunction. He argues that the Court of Chancery failed to address his discovery concerns. Finally, Everett complains that the Court of Chancery failed to address certain criminal acts that were allegedly perpetrated by the Rowes and directed toward Everett and/or his associates and his property during the pendency of the lawsuit. Everett s contentions are unavailing. (4) The Court has carefully considered the parties submissions as well as the extensive record from the Court of Chancery and finds it manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is without merit. The Court of Chancery s decisions reflect a thorough review of the matter, careful legal analysis, proper application of the law, and no abuse of discretion. There is nothing in the record to support Everett s contentions that the Court of Chancery committed either an error of law or an abuse of discretion when determining the existence of an easement and the need for a permanent injunction to prevent interference with the use of the easement. The judgment 3 of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the Master s well-reasoned final report dated December 20, 2001, as confirmed by the Court of Chancery on January 8, 2002, as well as the Master s well-reasoned final report dated June 21, 2001, as approved by the Court of Chancery on August 22, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Rowes motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
