An Antique Coupe

There is never a shortage of interesting decisions of the Delaware Court of Chancery

Tumultuous as it may be, this estate-related action presents one question— who is the rightful owner of a 1937 Ford Coupe? In this post trial ruling, I find the plaintiff is the rightful owner. The plaintiff and her late husband owned the vehicle jointly by the entireties. The husband, thus, did not have authority to transfer  ownership without the plaintiff’s consent. Yet he attempted to do so, and title was transferred to the husband’s cousin. Equity compels that such transaction be rescinded, and title to the vehicle returned to the plaintiff, its rightful owner. But, for the reasons explained herein, I recommend each side bear its own fees (except those fees already shifted during discovery). Costs should be shifted to the plaintiff as the prevailing party.

Dramatis personae

On December 29, 1987, Lisa Rauscher (later, Lisa Anderson then Lisa Craig,  the “Plaintiff”) and Charles Anderson (the “Decedent”) married.  For much of their relationship, the Plaintiff and the Decedent worked in tandem. But marital tensions flared beginning in 2016 and continuing until the Decedent’s untimely death on May 6, 2018. After the Decedent’s death, the steps the Plaintiff and the Decedent took reacting to those tensions came to light, complicating the administration of the Decedent’s estate. This report addresses those tensions, the steps taken in response, and the lingering issue that remains.

Plaintiff is a beautician; decedent was an antiques dealer.

They shared a mutual interest in antique cars.

The car at issue was clearly a joint possession as reflected by the sale documents.

As noted by the chancellor, the death of the husband made the untangling (as Major Strasser would say) a trifle one-sided

During the final tumultuous years, the Plaintiff recalls driving the Coupe to the Apple Scrapple Festival in October 2017 (20 miles away from their home). Little did she know, though, that the Decedent was already in talks to sell the Coupe to his cousin, Randall Lee Hill (the “Defendant”).

The Defendant is the Decedent’s younger cousin. He lived about 14 miles away from the Decedent and, when the Decedent’s health declined, would drive the Decedent to and from Lancaster, Pennsylvania to visit the Amish markets.During one of their road trips, the Defendant and the Decedent started to discuss the
Defendant buying the Coupe.

Like his cousin, the Defendant is an avid car collector. From visiting with the Decedent and frequenting many of the same car shows, the Defendant was familiar with, and always interested in, the Coupe. During their drives, sometime in 2017, the Defendant testified that he and the Decedent reached an agreement: the Defendant would buy the Coupe for $12,000.00.36 The Defendant admitted that the Plaintiff was unaware of the purported agreement; per the Defendant and the Decedent’s attorney, the Decedent wanted to sell the Coupe and use the proceeds to surprise the Plaintiff with a convertible.

Defendant paid for the vehicle, received the registration but did not take possession of the Coupe

And the Decedent purportedly agreed that the Defendant could leave the Coupe with the Decedent and pick it up when he was ready—the keys would be waiting for him.

When marital tensions increased, Plaintiff sought a protective order. Decedent denied the allegationd but agreed to move out

While leaving, the Decedent advised the Defendant that he should pick up the Coupe because the Decedent was being forced out of his home. The Defendant quickly worked to get title transferred, effective March 7, 2018 and on March 7 or 8, 2018, went to pick up the Coupe. By that time, the Decedent had moved out, and when the Defendant arrived, the Plaintiff would not allow the Defendant to take the Coupe and police would not interfere to force her to do so. Without cooperation or law enforcement support, the Defendant has not tried to physically obtain the Coupe again.

Divorce proceedings ensued but

After the PFA and title transfer, the Plaintiff moved out of the marital home and into safe houses. But the Plaintiff kept an eye on the property through the agreed-upon security cameras.

On May 6, 2018, while on her way to Assateague with friends, the Plaintiff checked the home cameras and saw a distressing scene. Instead of a quiet house, the Plaintiff unwittingly tuned into a house on fire and somebody trying to extinguish it. Before she or her friends could call the authorities, they called her. The
Plaintiff was instructed by first responders to go to the Delmar Police Department and, once at the station, she learned that the Decedent had intentionally set their house on before taking his own life.

With the Decedent’s death, the divorce action was rendered moot.

Ownership of the Coupe

That leaves (2)—whether the Decedent’s representations that he had authority to transfer the Coupe were false. Put differently, the Plaintiff’s claim for equitable fraud turns on whether the Decedent could validly transfer the Coupe without the Plaintiff’s consent. I find he could not, thus, his representations to the contrary were false and the transaction amounts to equitable fraud.

The Chancellor recommends that the title transfer be rescinded without restitution. (Mike Frisch)