Talley v. Horn: Mandatory Cancellation of Lis Pendens Under 25 Del. C. § 1606 and Affirmation of Fee-Shifting and Injunctive Relief for Serial Filers

Introduction

In Talley v. Horn, No. 429, 2024 (Del. Aug. 27, 2025), the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a Court of Chancery order cancelling two lis pendens notices filed by Kenneth and the late Janice Talley against residential property titled in their daughter and son-in-law, Judith and Darren Horn. The decision confirms the mandatory nature of cancellation under 25 Del. C. § 1606 when underlying litigation either has terminated or does not affect title, endorses fee-shifting against serial misuse of lis pendens, and upholds injunctive relief barring further filings. The Court also rejected appellants’ due process/right-to-counsel claims, reiterating there is no general right to appointed counsel in civil matters, and declined to consider extra-record mental-capacity reports first presented on appeal under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 8.

The case stems from a longstanding intra-family property arrangement dating back to 1989. After the Talleys lost at a 2022 bench trial in the Court of Chancery—where the court declared they held no interest in the property and cancelled a 2021 lis pendens—their later attempts to relitigate the property rights issue by repeatedly recording new lis pendens notices prompted the Chancery Court to cancel the notices, award attorney fees, and enter an injunction. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed across the board and cautioned the appellants that continued vexatious litigation risks additional sanctions and injunctions.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court’s brief order resolves several discrete issues:

Lis Pendens: The Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s cancellation of lis pendens filed in October 2023 and July 2024. The appellants did not contest on appeal that 25 Del. C. § 1606 mandated cancellation because all referenced cases had ended or did not affect title (Talley v. Horn, 2024 WL 4347147, at *1 & n.13 (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2024)).
Fee-Shifting and Injunction: The Court affirmed fee-shifting ($3,467.35) and an injunction barring further lis pendens filings, finding the appellants’ pattern of filings to be “exceptional abuse of process.”
Right to Counsel and Due Process: The Court rejected the appellants’ contention that the trial court violated due process by “making” Kenneth represent himself at the 2022 trial, noting there is no general right to appointed counsel in civil cases; the Talleys had counsel (CLASI) and chose to terminate the representation; and Kenneth had not been adjudicated incompetent (Iverson v. Hunt, 2020 WL 7265875, at *1 n.2 (Del. Dec. 10, 2020)).
Extra-Record Evidence: Neuropsychological reports obtained after trial were not considered on appeal under Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.
Appellees’ Request for Global Fees: The Court denied the Horns’ request to recover fees for this appeal because they proceeded pro se and otherwise held that broader fee requests covering other tribunals were beyond the scope of the appeal—while warning appellants that serial abuse risks further sanctions.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Talley v. Horn, 2022 WL 4963256 (Del. Ch. Oct. 4, 2022) (magistrate’s report): Following a two-day trial (and additional testimony), the Magistrate in Chancery recommended judgment for the Horns, declaring the Talleys held no interest in the property, cancelling a 2021 lis pendens, and declining fee-shifting. The Talleys did not file exceptions under Chancery Rule 144, and the Chancellor adopted the report (Oct. 21, 2022). No appeal was taken, rendering that judgment final.
Talley v. Horn, 2024 WL 4347147 (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2024): When the Horns moved to cancel a new 2023 lis pendens (and later the 2024 lis pendens), the Vice Chancellor adopted the Magistrate’s bench report cancelling the notices and shifting fees, emphasizing that lifting lis pendens was “mandatory under the statute” and that “exceptional abuse of process” justified fee-shifting and injunctive relief.
Iverson v. Hunt, 2020 WL 7265875, at *1 n.2 (Del. Dec. 10, 2020): Reaffirmed that there is no general right to court‑appointed counsel in civil cases.
Delaware Supreme Court Rule 8: Limits appellate review to the record below, barring consideration of new evidence not presented to the trial court.
Court of Chancery Rule 144: Governs exceptions to a Magistrate’s or Master’s report; the failure to file timely exceptions leads to adoption and finality.
25 Del. C. § 1606: Provides for mandatory cancellation of a lis pendens when the underlying litigation has been resolved or does not affect title to the property.
25 Del. C. § 1611: Authorizes costs and attorney fees in connection with wrongful or abusive lis pendens practices (as invoked by the Horns).

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning proceeds along clear procedural and statutory lines:

Finality of 2022 Judgment and Proper Use of Lis Pendens. The 2022 Chancery judgment—adopted without exceptions and not appealed—conclusively declared that the Talleys held no interest in the property and cancelled their 2021 lis pendens. Against that backdrop, the Court of Chancery later applied 25 Del. C. § 1606 to cancel subsequent lis pendens filings (2023 and 2024) tied to litigation that either was concluded or did not affect title. The Supreme Court noted that appellants did not challenge the statutory application on appeal; and, in any event, the Vice Chancellor had found cancellation to be “mandatory.” This reinforces that lis pendens may not be used to encumber title once the predicate title-affecting case has ended or where pending claims do not affect title.
Fee-Shifting and Injunctive Relief for Abuse of Process. The Magistrate and Vice Chancellor characterized the pattern of filings as “exceptional abuse of process,” a finding the Supreme Court allowed to stand. Fee-shifting was affirmed, and the injunction barring further lis pendens filings was also sustained. The combined result—cancellation, fees, and a tailored injunction—reflects Chancery’s equitable authority and the statutory framework (including § 1611) to address serial, improper use of lis pendens that clouds title and burdens opposing parties.
No General Right to Appointed Counsel in Civil Matters. Appellants’ primary appellate argument—asserting a due process violation because Kenneth represented himself in 2022—failed for multiple reasons: (a) there is no general right to appointed counsel in civil cases (Iverson v. Hunt); (b) the Talleys had counsel (CLASI) but voluntarily terminated the representation; and (c) Kenneth was not adjudicated incompetent. The Magistrate’s contemporaneous observations refuted claims of illiteracy preventing self-representation, and the Supreme Court agreed that the opportunity to litigate the 2022 trial issues had long passed.
No Extra-Record Evidence on Appeal. Psychological and neuropsychological evaluations first obtained and presented after the Chancery proceedings concluded could not be considered on appeal under Rule 8. The Court added that if capacity was truly at issue, appellants had ample opportunity to raise it below (including via guardianship petition).
Appellate Fee Request by Pro Se Appellees Denied. The Horns requested recovery of fees incurred in multiple tribunals. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery fee award but denied appellate fees because the Horns proceeded pro se and thus did not establish grounds for an award in this appeal. Broader fee requests were deemed beyond the scope of this appeal. The Court nonetheless warned appellants that continued vexatious conduct could result in further fee-shifting and injunctions.

Impact and Future Implications

Real Property Litigation and Marketable Title: The decision underscores that lis pendens cannot be used as a perpetual cloud on title. Once the underlying action has concluded unfavorably or does not assert a claim that affects title, § 1606 requires cancellation. Litigants must ensure that any recorded notice is strictly tethered to a pending, genuine title dispute.
Deterrence of Serial Filings: By affirming fee-shifting and injunctive relief, the Court signals a willingness to deter and sanction repetitive, abusive filings that burden courts and property owners. Parties who refile lis pendens after final adverse judgments risk monetary sanctions and prefiling injunctions.
Appellate Preservation and Timeliness: The decision emphasizes the importance of procedural rules—filing exceptions under Chancery Rule 144 and timely appeals. Parties cannot resurrect challenges to a final 2022 judgment via collateral devices (e.g., new lis pendens), nor can they revive arguments on appeal that were never preserved below.
Civil Right to Counsel: The Court reiterates that, absent a specific statutory right or exceptional circumstances not present here, civil litigants are not entitled to appointed counsel. Voluntary termination of legal-aid counsel does not convert to a due process violation at trial.
Extra-Record Materials on Appeal: Reports produced after judgment are outside the record and are not considered on appeal under Rule 8. Capacity-based concerns must be raised and supported in the trial court in real time, not post hoc.
Pro Se Litigants and Attorney Fees on Appeal: The Court’s refusal to award appellate attorney fees to pro se appellees reinforces the general principle that fee-shifting presupposes actual attorney-fee expenditures or a cognizable legal basis—a caution for both sides in considering appellate strategy and costs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Lis Pendens: A recorded notice alerting the public that litigation may affect title to a property. It clouds title and can impede sale or financing. In Delaware, lis pendens is strictly regulated. If the underlying action ends or does not seek relief that would affect title, the statute (25 Del. C. § 1606) requires cancellation.
Mandatory Cancellation: The term reflects the statute’s “shall” language—courts must remove a lis pendens when statutory criteria are met (e.g., no pending title-affecting action).
Fee-Shifting: A court order requiring one party to pay the other’s attorney fees. In the lis pendens context, Delaware statutes and Chancery’s equitable powers allow fee-shifting to deter misuse. Here, the court shifted fees based on “exceptional abuse of process.”
Injunctive Relief Limiting Filings: A court may enjoin a party from making further filings (like lis pendens) when necessary to prevent ongoing abuse. Such injunctions are tailored to stop the specific misconduct without unduly restricting legitimate access to courts.
Abuse of Process / Vexatious Conduct: Misuse of legal procedures for improper purposes—e.g., repeatedly recording lis pendens after losing on the merits, to pressure the title holder or encumber property without a current, viable title claim.
Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Unlike criminal cases, there is no general constitutional right to appointed counsel. Some civil areas have statutory rights (not at issue here). Legal-aid organizations provide representation by choice; terminating such representation does not create a right to court-appointed counsel.
Record on Appeal and Rule 8: Appellate courts generally review only what was presented to the trial court. New evidence introduced for the first time on appeal is ordinarily excluded, preserving fairness and finality.
Chancery Magistrate and Rule 144 Exceptions: When a Magistrate issues a report, the parties must timely file exceptions (objections) to preserve issues for review. Failure to do so leads to adoption of the report and final judgment.
Substitution Upon Death: When a party dies, a personal representative may seek substitution to continue the action. The Supreme Court noted Janice Talley’s death and that filings were considered, but took no further action on substitution in this appeal, as it did not affect the disposition.

Conclusion

Talley v. Horn is a clear reaffirmation of Delaware’s lis pendens regime and the judiciary’s tools to protect property rights and judicial resources. It holds that:

Under 25 Del. C. § 1606, cancellation of lis pendens is mandatory where the predicate litigation has concluded or does not affect title.
Court of Chancery may shift fees and enjoin further lis pendens filings where serial misuse constitutes “exceptional abuse of process.”
There is no general right to court‑appointed counsel in civil litigation; discharging legal-aid counsel does not yield a due process violation.
Appellate review is confined to the record below; extra-record capacity reports prepared after trial are excluded under Rule 8.
Pro se appellees ordinarily cannot recover attorney fees for appellate work, and fee claims spanning other tribunals are beyond the scope of a specific appeal.

Beyond resolving a contentious family property dispute, the decision sends a broader message: litigants may not weaponize lis pendens after losing on the merits, and persistent abuse will trigger both monetary and injunctive remedies. At the same time, the opinion underscores the importance of procedural rigor—timely exceptions, timely appeals, and raising competency or representation issues in the trial court—ensuring that disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly within the structured confines of Delaware’s civil justice system.