Kenneth Talley v. Judith Talley Horn

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: September 24, 2024
Date Decided: September 30, 2024

Kenneth R. Talley David J. Weidman, Esquire
28467 Pocahontas Avenue Sergovic Carmean Weidman
Millsboro, DE 19966 McCartney & Owens, P.A.
25 Chestnut Street
Janice A. Talley Georgetown, DE 19947
Luther Village
101 Babb Drive
Dover, DE 19901

RE: Kenneth Talley, et al. v. Judith Talley Horn, et al.
C.A. No. 2021-0011-BWD

Dear Counsel and Litigants:

This Letter Opinion considers exceptions to a Bench Ruling of the Magistrate

issued April 24, 2024.1 This case in its original incarnation concerned rights in a

property near Milton.2 The Magistrate determined that Plaintiffs, Kenneth and

Janice Talley, had no interest in that property, a decision that was entered as an Order

of this Court on October 21, 2022.3 The matter was reopened by Defendants seeking

1
Tr. of 4-24-2024 Final Report of the Magistrate on Defs.’ Mot. to Cancel Lis Pendens, Dkt. No.
79 (“Tr.”).
2
Verified Compl., Dkt. No. 1.
3
Adopting Ord., Dkt. No. 63.
to remove a lis pendens on the property.4 The lis pendens described several legal

actions purporting to be liens on the property, all of which have been finally resolved

against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants. The Magistrate, after a thorough

review of the record and argument, issued a thoughtful Bench Decision finding that

the removal of the lis pendens was mandatory, and directing that fees be shifted

against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants on account of Plaintiffs’ vexatious and

frivolous litigation.5

Plaintiffs, who appear pro se, took exception to the Magistrate’s Report in a

document titled “Notice of Objection” filed on May 7, 2024.6 That document

contained a memorandum in support of the exceptions.7 Plaintiffs also filed a

document denominated a “Jurisdiction Summary.”8 Defendants filed their

“Answering Brief to Plaintiffs’ Exceptions to Magistrate’s Final Report dated April

24, 2024” on May 30, 2024.9 Plaintiffs failed to file a reply.10 On September 24,

2024, I deemed any reply waived and considered the matter submitted on the papers.

4
Granted (Proposed Ord. for Mot. to Reopen), Dkt. No. 67.
5
See Tr. 9:15–12:6.
6
Pl.’s Exceptions to Magistrate’s Final Report, Dkt. No. 85 (“Notice of Obj.”).
7
Id.
8
Pet’r’s Opening Br. to Magistrate’s Final Report, Dkt. No. 89 (“Jurisdiction Summary”).
9
Defs.’ Answering Br. to Pls.’ Exceptions to Magistrate’s Final Report Dated April 24, 2024,
Dkt. No. 92.
10
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “Proposed Order for an Extension of Time” but have not
filed any additional briefing in the following four months. Proposed Ord. for an Extension of
Time, Dkt. No. 90.
2
Upon careful de novo consideration of the record, as required by our Supreme

Court’s directive in DiGiacobbe v. Sestak,11 I find that there is no question that the

lifting of the lis pendens is mandatory under the statute, and that the exceptional

abuse of process here as detailed, inter alia, in Plaintiffs’ “Statement of Related

Cases” in their “Notice of Objection,”12 amply justifies shifting fees as directed by

the Magistrate.

Plaintiffs do not truly contest that the Magistrate’s recommendation to lift the

lis pendens is justified on the record.13 Instead, they seek to reopen the underlying

finding that they lack an interest in the property. Plaintiffs do not raise substantive

arguments that this Court’s Order finding that they had no interest in the property

was in error; instead they argue procedural defects.14 Principally, these arguments

involve lack of counsel on behalf of the Talleys and that Mr. Talley was unable to

participate meaningfully because he is hard of hearing and “analphabetic.”15 The

11
743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999).
12
Pl.’s Notice of Exceptions, Dkt. No. 85.
13
With one exception. In their Notice of Objection, Plaintiffs point out that the Magistrate found
in her Bench Ruling that all pertinent litigation cited in the lis pendens had been resolved;
Plaintiffs state that one district court case, No. 23-982-MN, had not yet been dismissed. Notice
of Objection 11; Tr. 24:2–8. In fact, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
dismissed that case on July 9, 2024, and Plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit, which is still
pending. See Talley v. Horn, 2024 WL 3339041 (D. Del. Jul. 9, 2024); Notice of Appeal to the
Third Circuit, No. 1-23-cv-00982, Dkt. 21. However, as the Magistrate correctly noted in her
bench ruling regarding another district court case, this appeal does not affect title to the property
because the federal court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate title to the subject property. Tr.
25:21–24.
14
Notice of Obj. 11–12.
15
Id. Being myself an-articulate in English, I had to look up this locution from the self-described
analphabet, Mr. Talley; for any reader whose vocabulary is similarly stunted, I note that
3
time for rearguing (or appealing) the substantive or procedural decisions that led to

the 2022 decision of the Court has long since passed, however.

Accordingly, I adopt the well-reasoned Bench Ruling of the Magistrate in its

entirety. I remand the matter to the Magistrate; Defendants should submit a form of

Order lifting the lis pendens and enjoining future such filings on the current record,

as well as the shifting of fees, together with a Rule 88 affidavit, to the Magistrate.

To the extent that the foregoing requires an order to a take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Vice Chancellor

“analphabetic” is a sesquipedalian way to say that one cannot read. Analphabetic, Meriam-
Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analphabetic (last visited September 26,
2023). Based upon the record before the Magistrate, it appears that Mr. Talley’s assertion of
analphabetism is, so to speak, an-earnest; perhaps an-honest.
4