Where Will They Park?



Can you find 14 parking spaces in this photo?

The Delaware Supreme Court claims there are 14 parking spaces in our common areas.

We don't even know how they got that number (since nobody from the County or Court ever came out and counted) but they say it six times in their order.

The 1946 Triplex deeds clearly state "for parking and driveway purposes" for Common Area #1 (the area in front of the buildings):

for parking and driveway purposes

And they clearly state "for driveway purposes" for Common Area #2 (the area on the side and to the rear of the buildings:

for driveway purposes

There are seven striped parking spots in Common Area #1 and zero in Common Area #2.

Feel free to stop by and check it out for yourself!

Triplex Common Areas


Delaware Courts Confiscated Our Property

You're Next ... Be Concerned!


The Delaware Supreme Court penalized us $176,670.47 for expressing our 1st Amendment Rights!

The Delaware Supreme Court failed to correct the actions of a lower court judge who didn't like our "conduct as a whole" even though we did nothing illegal. This same judge can't read a deed and thinks you can park in an area designated by deed "for driveway purposes."


The judge who heard our case owns a house 661 feet from our store!

661 feet between 101 Murphy Rd and 1709 Concord Pike

Any reasonable person would question why a judge would hear a case where the disputed property is less than 1,000 feet from his.   Especially a neighbor dispute that was dubbed a “Parking Feud” by the local media before the case was even filed (News Journal 12/23/2011, Page A1).  

It is quite possible that VC Laster did a factual investigation of the area on his own and/or was exposed to secondhand reports (media, tenants, neighbors, family members, friends) about the situation, rather than relying on the evidence presented at trial.

VC Laster should have recused himself.    Or at least disclosed the potential conflict as per Rule 2.11(C) of the Delaware Judges’ Code of Conduct.   We would have not agreed to allow VC Laster to participate if we knew he had an economic interest in such close proximity to our properties.

It is reasonable to assume that his financial interest in 101 Murphy Road may have played a part in his decision making process.

Read the full complaint that was filed with the Court on the Judiciary on 5/13/2014.

Read the News Journal article from 6/13/2014.

What does this mean for you?

If a judge thinks you are "overbearing", "intimidating" and/or "harassing" (with no proof of criminal activity),
he can make you pay the attorney who sued you. And the attorney can charge you for as many hours as they'd like, just along as their hourly rate is "reasonable."

And on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court will not reverse the subjective opinion and will most likely screw up more facts - like saying you own three buildings when you only own one. Or say that you have 14 parking spaces when you only have 7.

The Delaware Supreme Court has failed the citizens of Delaware.