On March 24, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its order in Green v. Templin, C.A. No. 479, 2010 (Del. Mar. 24, 2010), affirming the Court of Chancery’s “well-reasoned decision.” Bayard represented Intervenor St. Edmond’s Federal Savings Bank, and Stephen B. Brauerman made the argument before the Supreme Court. The case involved a dispute over whether the Templins, St. Edmond’s successors-in-interest, could use a 20 foot wide easement, that ran partially across the Green’s property, as the primary access to a 49 unit townhouse complex they wished to develop. In an issue of first impression, the Court of Chancery found that the Templins’ proposed use did not violate the scope of the easement after applying the test set forth in Section 4.10 of the Restatement (Third) of Property (“Section 4.10”) to determine the extent to which an increase in vehicular traffic across an easement is permissible. See generally Green v. Templin, 2010 WL 2734147 (Del. Ch.). On appeal, the Greens argued that the Court of Chancery applied the wrong legal standard by relying solely upon the three-part test set forth in Section 4.10, instead of applying the common law “reasonable use” doctrine. St. Edmond’s, argued that the application of the Section 4.10 was proper and the Green’s appeal was moot because the Court of Chancery incorporated the “reasonable use” test into the first part of its analysis pursuant to Section 4.10.
A copy of the Supreme Court’s Order can be found here.