(a) Without limiting the jurisdiction of any court of this State, the Court of Chancery shall, through a Magistrate in Chancery or such other person as may be appointed that Magistrate in Chancery’s designee, mediate disputes involving the enforcement of deed covenants or restrictions when:
(1) An action involving the enforcement of deed covenants or restrictions has been filed with the Court;
(2) At least 1 party is an association or other entity representing the homeowners or lot owners of a subdivision, if such an association or entity exists; and
(3) At least 1 party is a homeowner or lot owner in that subdivision. The mediator shall assist the parties in trying to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of their dispute. Mediation proceedings under this section are confidential and not of public record.
(b) By rule, the Court of Chancery may further define those types of deed covenant or restriction cases which must be mediated.
(c) Upon the filing of an action involving the enforcement of deed covenants or restrictions, the Court shall schedule a mandatory mediation hearing to be held within 60 days of the filing. If the parties fail to resolve the dispute, the Court shall schedule a trial to be held within 120 days of the failed attempt to mediate the dispute, unless for good cause shown the Court in its discretion concludes that a longer period of time is warranted. A Magistrate in Chancery shall preside over the trial.
(d) The parties to a dispute mediated pursuant to the provisions of this section are not required to be represented by an attorney during a mandatory mediation proceeding.
(e) The nonprevailing party at a trial held pursuant to the provisions of this section must pay the prevailing party’s attorney fees and court costs, unless the court finds that enforcing this subsection would result in an unfair, unreasonable, or harsh outcome.
75 Del. Laws, c. 379,
§
1;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
84 Del. Laws, c. 101,
§
2;
Notes of Decisions
Garnett O'Marrow v. Dean P. Roles, Jr. (Del. Ch. 2016).
· cites it 4× “for reimbursement of his reasonable attorney’s fees under the provisions of 10 Del. C. § 348. Defendant Page 1 of 6 took exception to this omission and asked me to modify my Draft Report to award him reasonable attorney’s fees as the successful party in this action based upon…”
Brandywood Civic Ass'n v. Gary Freas (Del. Ch. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Background Plaintiff, Brandywood Civic Association (“BCA”), which serves as the association for homeowners in Brandywood, a community of single family homes, filed a Verified Complaint on October 11, 2017 to enforce Brandywood’s Declaration of Restrictions (the “Deed…”
Keen-wik Associations v. Anthony G. Campisi (Del. Ch. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Under the American Rule, each party is normally responsible for their own attorneys’ fees, absent express statutory language to the contrary, a fee-shifting contractual provision, or an equitable doctrine exception, such as the bad faith exception.”
James W. Owen, Jr. v. Tavistock Civic Ass'n, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Background The Owens, homeowners in the Tavistock development, filed this case under 10 Del. C. § 348 seeking a judicial declaration that Tavistock improperly enforced a deed restriction in denying the Owens’ request to erect a privacy fence.”
Stonebridge Townhomes Owners' Ass'n v. Mark T. Ptomey (Del. Ch. 2026).
· cites it 3× “”108 For an action to be treated as expedited under Section 348, the Plaintiff needed to “attach to the complaint, a certification that the case is eligible to proceed under 10 Del. C. § 348[,]” as required in Court of Chancery Rule 174(c)(2).”
— 10 Del. C. § 348(a) — 2 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 348(a)(3) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 348(c) — 4 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 348(e) — 20 cases
Keen-wik Associations v. Anthony G. Campisi (Del. Ch. 2020).
“Under the American Rule, each party is normally responsible for their own attorneys’ fees, absent express statutory language to the contrary, a fee-shifting contractual provision, or an equitable doctrine exception, such as the bad faith exception.”
James W. Owen, Jr. v. Tavistock Civic Ass'n, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2019).
“Background The Owens, homeowners in the Tavistock development, filed this case under 10 Del. C. § 348 seeking a judicial declaration that Tavistock improperly enforced a deed restriction in denying the Owens’ request to erect a privacy fence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.