Background
Paula H. Smith sued the Federal National Mortgage Association, seeking ownership of real property through adverse possession. The Court of Chancery dismissed her complaint in March 2024 because she did not allege the required twenty years of possession. Smith alleged that she began trying to purchase the property in April 2018 and first possessed it on February 4, 2020.
Smith did not appeal the dismissal. She instead filed repeated requests to reopen the case, disputing FNMA’s ownership, describing the effects of her eviction, criticizing the care of the property, and asserting other facts that did not supply grounds for reopening. After multiple judicial officers rejected those efforts, the Court of Chancery again refused to reopen the case and restricted future filings unless Smith provided the certifications and obtained the leave required under 10 Del. C. § 8803(e).
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. Applying abuse-of-discretion review to the refusal to reopen the judgment, the court held that Smith’s arguments did not establish reversible error. Her own allegations foreclosed an adverse-possession claim because they showed that she could not satisfy Delaware’s twenty-year possession requirement.
The court also upheld the filing injunction. It agreed that Smith’s persistent repetition of frivolous positions already rejected by several judicial officers constituted an abuse of the judicial process. Her future filings therefore could be conditioned on compliance with Section 8803(e).
Key Takeaways
- An adverse-possession claimant in Delaware must establish open, notorious, hostile, and exclusive possession for twenty years.
- A denial of a motion to reopen a judgment under Court of Chancery Rule 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Courts may restrict future filings when repeated attempts to relitigate rejected claims amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Rule 60(b) cannot substitute for a timely appeal or provide repeated opportunities to relitigate a legally deficient claim. Allegations concerning hardship, property expenditures, or disputed ownership do not cure the failure to plead the statutory period for adverse possession.
It also confirms the Court of Chancery’s authority to impose statutory filing conditions on a litigant whose repetitive, meritless submissions burden the judicial process.