Title: Matter of: Kostyshyn

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF PETER 
KOSTYSHYN FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 117, 2011 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 8, 2011 
Decided: April 19, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of April 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Peter Kostyshyn, seeks to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel 
the Court of Chancery to schedule a hearing and to give him access to all 
records of the Court of Chancery and the Register of Wills regarding the 
Estate of Kataryna Kostyshyn.  The State of Delaware and New Castle 
County have jointly filed an answer requesting that the petition be 
dismissed.  We find that Kostyshyn’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Kostyshyn is an inmate in the 
custody of the Delaware Department of Correction.  In October 2001, the 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
Register of Wills determined that Kostyshyn and two of his siblings, John 
and Patricia (collectively, the “Siblings”) had willfully failed to include 
another sibling, Miroslaw Kostyshyn, on their sworn petition requesting 
letters of administration with respect to the Estate of Kataryna Kostyshyn, 
their mother (the “Estate”).  As a result, the Court of Chancery appointed a 
Delaware attorney to serve as successor administrator of the Estate.  
Patricia’s subsequent petition to remove the attorney from the position of 
administrator was denied.   
 
(3) 
In July 2003, the Court of Chancery authorized the sale of real 
property from the Estate to pay death taxes, penalties, interest and other 
expenses in connection with the administration of the Estate.  After the 
Siblings contributed sufficient funds to cover the debts and expenses of the 
Estate, the Court of Chancery revoked its order authorizing the sale of the 
real property.   
 
(4) 
The Estate was closed on October 21, 2003.  No exceptions 
were filed.  The final accounting was approved by the Court of Chancery on 
March 8, 2004.  The successor administrator paid into the Court of Chancery 
the remainder of the funds that had been advanced by the Siblings.  A 
deduction was made for attorney’s fees.  Since that time, Kostyshyn has 
made several requests for payment of his share of the funds paid into the 
 
3
Court of Chancery.  By letter dated June 20, 2005, he was advised by the 
Register of Wills to request payment in writing and was provided with a 
copy of a sample petition.  The Register of Wills informed Kostyshyn that 
he did not have to appear in person at the Register’s Office.  
 
(5) 
In January 2011, Patricia made a request in writing for payment 
of her share of the funds.  In February 2011, Patricia and John appeared 
before the Court of Chancery to formally request payment of the funds.  By 
order dated February 10, 2011, a check for the remaining funds made 
payable jointly to the Siblings was sent to them via certified mail and was 
signed for by Patricia.  All matters relating to the Estate are now closed. 
 
(6) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that a) he has a clear 
right to the performance of the duty; b) no other adequate remedy is 
available; and c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 
duty.3            
 
(7) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  Kostyshyn has failed to demonstrate that the Court of Chancery has 
arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty to which he has a clear right.  
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
 
4
The record before us reflects that the Estate is now closed, all remaining 
funds advanced by the Siblings have been returned to them and, therefore, 
Kostyshyn’s requests regarding the Estate are moot.  As such, we conclude 
that the instant petition for a writ of mandamus must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice