IMO the Petition of Stephon G. Neal for a Writ of Mandamus

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 14, 2026
• Docket: 463, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF STEPHON G. § No. 463, 2025 NEAL/ZION RA’EL AMARU FOR § A WRIT OF MANDAMUS §

Submitted: January 21, 2026 Decided: April 14, 2026

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the response to

the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner, Stephon G. Neal/Zion Ra’El Amaru, trustee of the

Crowned Champion Sovereign Trust (the “Trust), seeks to invoke the original

jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus

directing the Court of Chancery to accept his filings for equitable recognition of the

Trust. After careful review, we conclude that the petition must be dismissed.

(2) In November 2025, Neal submitted documents to the Court of Chancery

for equitable recognition of the Trust. The cover letter and complaint/petition for

recognition stated that there was no adverse party. Neal alleges that a Court of

Chancery clerk refused to accept the documents, stating that the court only accepted

complaints against another party. (3) Neal then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. He

seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Chancery to accept his filings for

equitable recognition of the Trust. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing

Neal to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for his failure to state

a basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus. In his response, Neal states that the

Court of Chancery was required to accept his non-adversarial documents for

equitable recognition of the Trust.

(4) A writ of mandamus will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a

clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is

available; and (iii) that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its

duty. 1 “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act,

this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a

particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the

control of its docket.” 2

(5) There is no basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus here. Although

Neal is correct that the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction over trusts, 3 he fails to

identify any authority supporting his belief that the Court of Chancery is required to

1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 2 Id. 3 See, e.g., 12 Del. C. § 3804(g) (“The Court of Chancery shall have jurisdiction over statutory trusts to the same extent as it has jurisdiction over common law trusts formed under the laws of the State.”).

2 accept non-adversarial filings for “equitable recognition” of trusts.4 Neal has not

shown that the Court of Chancery arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed

to him.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of a

writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

4 Petition at 2.