The DiStefanos purchased Lot #74, adjacent to Westminster Club.

• The deed specifies the property is “subject to a 25 foot right of way along the northeasterly property line leading from Cheltenham Road to lands of the Westminster Club”. DiStefano – Bill of Sale & Deed for Lot #74
• The “Pool Road” equals the 25′ x 216′ portion of land owned by the DiStefanos, subject to the right of way specified in their deed, giving Westminster Club the limited right only to enter and exit the lands of Westminster Club.
• The DiStefanos are permitted to use their land otherwise as they see fit (including parking), as long as they “do not interfere with the proper and reasonable use of the easement.”
• From 1973 forward, the DiStefanos have continuously informed Westminster Club that pool members did not have permission to park within the ROW.

Property Line Issue Discovered

• The DiStefanos discovered and informed Westminster Club that the pool’s fence was not the official property line (Vandemark and Lynch Survey) as had been mutually observed for almost fifty years.
• As a result, the few feet the DiStefanos had been maintaining since 1973 on their side of the fence actually belonged to them, as per the Delaware Code §10-7901, 7902 Adverse Possession.
• The DiStefanos wished to come to an agreement with Westminster Club and settle this property issue without resorting to litigation.

Westminster Club Hires First Attorney

• Megan Sanfrancesco, Esquire sent a certified letter to the DiStefanos, informing them she had been retained by the Westminster Club’s Board of Directors.
• The letter claimed that the DiStefanos had no right to park their personal vehicles within the right of way or to place cones along the shoulder in an area where the lawn had been recently turfed.
• Westminster Club rejected the DiStefanos’ claim of owning the few feet of land outside their fence via Adverse Possession.
• In closing, Ms. Sanfrancesco indicated that Westminster Club would be willing to permit the DiStefanos to keep their shed in its current location, contingent on their agreement to the terms of the letter relating to the right of way.

New Castle County Receives Complaint

• An “anonymous” complaint was made to the New Castle County Department of Land Use, alleging a setback violation due to the DiStefanos’ shed being too close to the property line.
• A County Violation Notice was sent to the DiStefanos, informing them of the violation and giving them just a number of weeks to either move their shed, and the concrete pad it rests on, or face possible criminal charges and fines.

The DiStefanos were forced to file a lawsuit

• Westminster Club was unwilling to come to an agreement on the property line, insisting on conflating it with the right of way.
• Concurrently, New Castle County demanded that the DiStefanos’ shed be moved immediately.
• With no other options available, the DiStefanos hired an attorney to file an Adverse Possession lawsuit against Westminster Club.
• Following the filing of the complaint, New Castle County was required to stand down until the legal matter was resolved.

Westminster Club Hires Second Attorney – Stalls for the Next Two Years

• Westminster Club retained Donald Gouge, Jr. as their new attorney but immediately started dragging their feet and rejected offers to settle.

Westminster Club Capitulates on Property – Countersues Over an Unrelated Right of Way

• The DiStefanos filed a motion asking the Court to compel Westminster Club to either sign an agreement to transfer the disputed land over to the DiStefanos or move to trial on the original complaint of adverse possession.
• On 11/22/2022, the President of Westminster Club, J.P. Gulli, signed an agreement to transfer over every inch of disputed property on the DiStefanos’ side of the fence, just as was originally demanded more than two years prior.
• Instead of ending the litigation at this point, Westminster Club filed a countersuit claiming the DiStefanos had no right to park on their own property within the unrelated right of way.
• DiStefano’s answer to Westminster Club’s countersuit and exhibits.

Countersuit Moves into Discovery – Depositions Taken

• On 8/18/2023, the deposition of Domenic P. DiStefano was taken by Westminster Club’s attorney, Donald Gouge, Jr.
• On 9/15/2023, the deposition deposition of Wayne Surles was taken by the DiStefanos’ attorney, William J. Rhodunda, Jr.
• On 9/15/2023 Westminster Club turns over discovery documents.

Opening Briefs and Motion(s) for Summary Judgment are Filed

• The DiStefanos file their Opening Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment.
• Westminster Club files their Opening Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment.

Responses to Opening Briefs Filed

• The DiStefanos files their response to Westminster Club’s Brief
• Westminster Club files their response to the DiStefano’s Brief

DiStefanos Motion for Summary Judgement Granted

• After nearly five years, the dispute between the DiStefanos and Westminster Club has been resolved by the Honorable Sean P. Lugg, Judge of the Superior Court of Delaware, in favor of the DiStefanos.
• This prolonged and costly litigation could have been avoided in a matter of days back in 2019 if Westminster Club had acknowledged that the land maintained by the DiStefanos for almost 50 years was rightfully part of their backyard. Instead, Westminster Club’s refusal to recognize the DiStefanos’ claim forced them to initiate a lawsuit, a dispute Westminster Club was ultimately destined to lose.
• Two years into the dispute, Westminster Club capitulated, transferring the land to the DiStefanos without gaining anything. However, the dispute did not end there; Westminster Club proceeded to file an unrelated and frivolous countersuit, seemingly out of spite. This countersuit was decisively settled in the DiStefanos’ favor, as reflected in Judge Lugg’s opinion published on February 27, 2024.
• The financial toll of this legal ordeal exceeded $30,000 in attorney fees for the DiStefanos, with Westminster Club likely incurring a similar expense.

Epilogue

Questions for the Board;

• How much did this ordeal cost the Westminster Club in total, including legal fees and other related expenses?
• Were the members, including all board members, regularly informed of the increasing scope and costs as the situation persisted over the years?
• During  discovery, Westminster Club did not turn over any records of board meeting minutes or internal communications regarding this matter. Why were these critical documents not available or maintained?
• Who was responsible for paying the legal bills, and from where did the money come? Were member dues used to cover these expenses?
•  Even if Westminster Club had  prevailed in court, what tangible benefits or gains would have resulted from the victory?