Yumkas, Vidman, Sweeney & Mulrenin, LLC v. Wayne B. Knight, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 The Circle GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 AND Leonard L. Williams Justice Center 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19980-3734 Sam Glasscock III VICE CHANCELLOR September 22, 2017 Patrick Scanlon, Esquire Darlene Wyatt Blythe, Esquire Law Offices of Patrick Scanlon, P.A. 203 N.E. Front Street, Suite 101 Milford, DE 19963 Walter J. O’Brien, Esquire The Law Offices of Walter J. O’Brien, LLC 30 The Green Dover, DE 19901 Kathleen DeLacy, Esquire Reger Rizzo & Darnell LLP Brandywine Plaza East 1523 Concord Pike, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19803 RE: Yumkas, Vidmar, Sweeney & Mulrenin, LLC v. Wayne B. Knight, et al. C.A. No. 2017-0237-SG Dear Counsel: I have the Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Respondent IRA Services Trust Company (“IRA”), together with the Plaintiff’s Answer to the motion and IRA’s response. This Complaint involves an alleged fraudulent transfer of real property. The transferee, who allegedly did not give value, is Milford Marina Enterprises LLC (“Milford Marina”). The Complaint alleges at paragraph 21 that Milford Marina then mortgaged the property, with the result that IRA holds a secured interest in the property. The Complaint makes no allegations against and makes no further factual reference to IRA. In Count I, the Plaintiff seeks a judgment against other defendants, statutory avoidance of the transfer of the property to Milford Marina and injunctive relief and a receiver to prevent further encumbrance of the property. 1 Count II2 and alias Count III3 seek the same relief. Nowhere in the Complaint is there any request for relief against IRA, and nowhere in the Complaint is there a suggestion that IRA participated in the allegedly fraudulent transfer or has otherwise engaged in behavior that would make it liable to the Plaintiff. 1 Verified Compl. ¶¶ 22–32. Verified Compl. ¶¶ 33–40. 3 There are two Counts II in this Complaint. I refer to the second Count II as “alias Count III”. Verified Compl. ¶¶ 41–48. 2 In this context, IRA moved for a more definitive statement. Instead of providing a more definitive statement, the Plaintiff responded that IRA “is a party to this action because it is a party of interest.”4 It then states, in abbreviated form, the gravamen of the allegations of the Complaint.5 IRA, therefore, is required to answer a complaint, including asserting affirmative defenses as appropriate, in which no cause of action is attempted to be stated against it, and which seeks no relief against it. Accordingly, the case against IRA is stayed. IRA need not answer the Complaint or file a Motion to Dismiss. Any party may seek leave to lift the stay for cause, as that party finds appropriate. To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely, /s/ Sam Glasscock III Vice Chancellor SG/lkpr cc: Register in Chancery 4 5 Pl.’s Resp. to IRA Services Trust Co.’s Mot. for More Definite Statement ¶ 2. Id. ¶¶ 4–6.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
