The Law

A 196 acre property along Routes 301 and 896 in Middletown, Delaware was subdivided and rezoned in 1983. The plan was to build a shopping center on part of the property. An engineering firm, Franco R. Bellafante, Inc., was hired to complete the subdivision process. During the review process, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) commented that it has no issue with the proposal as long as one full entrance and exit was shared by the two properties. The following note was added to the preliminary plan:

A CROSS EASEMENT IS HEREBY ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND OTHER LANDS OF VIOLA CARTER, FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. ADDITIONALLY, A COMBINED ENTRANCE/EXIT FACILITY MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE WHEN AND IF THE LANDS LABELED “OTHER LANDS OF VIOLA CARTER” ARE DEVELOPED FOR USES OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL

The land owner, Viola Carter certified and signed the final Record Plan, and once approved recorded the it in the Recorder of Deeds Office.

A year later, the subdivided property was sold and Summit Plaza Shopping Center (Summit) was built. With each sale of the property, the deeds referred to the final Record Plan.

In 2020, the adjacent property, which was subject to the final Record Plan, was sold to Reybold Venture Group IX, LLC, to build a self‑storage facility. The DelDOT would only approve a right turn in and a right turn out from the property. When Summit was approached about the cross‑easement, they refused to recognise it.

Reybold sued in the Court of Chancery. The magistrate assigned, after a one‑day trial, reported recommending ruling in Reybold’s favor, finding that the easement language was clear and that Carter’s signature demonstrated her intent to create a private cross‑easement. The Vice Chancellor disagreed.

The Vice Chancellor held that the easement language was merely a "notation" under the New Castle County Code. Under the version of the Code in effect at the time, only the County — not private landowners — could enforce such notations.

The court also reasoned that Carter’s signature did not show she intended to create a private easement. She had not participated in the planning process, and the easement language originated from DelDOT’s request, not her own initiative.

In short, the Chancery Court concluded:

• The easement language was a regulatory note, not a private grant.
• Only the County could enforce it.
• Carter’s signature did not transform the note into a private easement.

The court entered judgment for Summit, prompting Reybold’s appeal.

The Delaware Supreme Court took a sharply different view, reframing the central question of the case.

"The threshold issue," the Court wrote, "is whether a property owner has established a private cross easement binding her property when she signs and certifies a record plan containing a note that says a cross easement has been established."

The justices concluded that she had.

The Court emphasized that the easement language — "a cross‑easement is hereby established" — was unambiguous and met Delaware’s standard for creating an express easement.

• "No specific words are required," the Court noted, "so long as the writing clearly reflects the grantor’s intent to create an easement."
• The Court rejected the Chancery Court’s view that Carter’s signature was merely ministerial. By signing the plan, Carter certified that it was her "act and plan" and that she agreed to develop the land in accordance with it.
• "Nothing more was needed," the Court wrote, to affirm that Carter established a private cross‑easement reflected in the plan note.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the argument that New Castle County Code Section 20 70(a) barred private enforcement of the easement. That provision, the Court explained, restricts enforcement of regulatory plan notes — not private easements.

The easement existed independently of the County’s regulatory authority.

Summit argued that because DelDOT requested the easement note, it could not reflect Carter’s intent. The Court disagreed, noting that easements do not require bilateral negotiation and can be created through any signed writing that clearly expresses intent.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery and entered judgment for Reybold, reinstating the Magistrate’s findings.

"By signing and certifying a record plan containing a note reflecting a private express cross‑easement," the Court concluded, "the Viola Carter property was subject to a cross‑easement. Summit, as a subsequent purchaser, is bound."

The ruling clears the way for Reybold to use Summit’s entrance for left turn exits — and sends a clear message about the enduring power of recorded land documents in Delaware.

(Reybold Venture Group IX, LLC v Summit Plaza Shopping Center, LLC (Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Docket: 124, 2025))

Submitted: January 2026
Decided: March 2026

Feature Articles

If you have an opinion on the retailing or retail real estate industries, take this opportunity to share your thoughts. Articles should run between 400 and 800 words. Topics can, be general in nature, consumer observation or specific to retail concepts or practices.

Articles will be posted for at least one week and will then be placed in the Editorial Archives. All articles submitted will be read and considered but we cannot guarantee publication. Each published article will carry the submitters byline (if desired) and is a free service to our community.

Article ideas and suggestions are also always welcomed. Contact info@retailtenants.com