Clifton Sykes v. Wayne J. Mackay and Joanne Mackay

── Clifton Sykes v. Wayne J. Mackay and Joanne Mackay ── Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CLIFTON SYKES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2025-0724-JRB ) WAYNE J. MACKAY ) & JOANNE MACKAY ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ORDER WHEREAS, on June 26, 2025, Plaintiff Clifton Sykes (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint seeking a declaratory order against Defendants Wayne J. Mackay (“Wayne”) and Joann Mackay (“Joann” and collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff requests the Court find that he had sufficiently performed his duties under the contract for sale of the two properties respectively located at 311 and 315 Bradford Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (“the Subject Properties”);1 1 Pl. Compl., Docket Item (“D.I.”) 1. 1  WHEREAS, on September 2, 2025, Defendants filed both an Answer to the Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss;2 and in their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants raised several arguments for dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint;3 WHEREAS, while Defendants did not clearly state in their Motion on what grounds under Rule 12(b) they were seeking dismissal, the Court recognizes that the self-represented Defendants were arguing for the Court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6); WHEREAS, Defendants argued this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the contractual relationship between the parties is that of landlord-tenant, either by the nature of the contract itself or because the contact converted to a landlord-tenant agreement under 25 Del. C. § 314(d), thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Justice of the Peace Court (“JP Court”);4 WHEREAS, the parties had been involved in two matters in JP Court, which are related to this present matter;5 one action was resolved by voluntary dismissal by 2 Def. Answ. to Compl., D.I. 8; Def. Mot. to Dismiss, D.I. 11. 3 Def. Mot. to Dismiss, D.I. 11. 4 Def. Mot. to Dismiss, D.I. 11. 5 Tr. 19:24-22:1. Both JP cases have been dismissed. The first case, JP13-25-001758 Mackay v. Sykes, was dismissed before oral argument, upon Plaintiff’s request, because the parties were engaging in settlement conversations. The second related matter, JP13-25- 008547 Mackay v. Sykes, was dismissed on October 24, 2025, because Plaintiff did not meet his minimum notice requirements for a summary possession under 25 Del. C. § 5707. 2 Defendants here before Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss here, and, the second action was resolved by dismissal by the JP Court judge after Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss in the matter presently pending before this Court;6 WHEREAS, the parties appeared, in-person, before the Court on February 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. for oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;7 present for the hearing was Josiah Wolcott, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, and Wayne J. Mackay, self-represented Defendant;8 WHEREAS, at the beginning of oral argument, Defendant Wayne Mackay made an oral motion for continuance on the basis that an interested party, Mr. Floyd White (“Mr. White”), was not yet a party to the case and is an indispensable party; Plaintiff objected to this request, and the Court denied the continuance request;9 6 Tr. 19:24-22:1. At oral argument, the Court requested the parties provide copies of the dismissal in the aforementioned