USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX: KINGSHILL C. K. BENOIT, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 976/1981 ACTION TO SET ASIDE TAX SALE AND FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Vv. ROSHAN PANTHAKY, TOMAS LEGUILLOU, JAMES DANIEL, VERONICA DANIEL and COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Defendants. eee et See ee? ee See Set ee ee Sone? See! eee Nee DOUGLAS A. BRADY, Esq. Jacobs and Brady No. 6 Company Street Christiansted, St. Croix U. S. Virgin Islands 00820 Counsel for Plaintiff JOEL H. HOLT, ESQ. 51 ABC Company Street Christiansted, St. Croix U. S. Virgin Islands 00820 Counsel for Defendants - Daniel MICHAEL S. McLAURIN, ESQ. Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 1074 - Toro Building Christiansted, St. Croix U. S. Virgin Islands 00820 Counsel for Defendant - Government JOHN LENAHAN, ESQ. Bryant, Lenahan and Eltman No. 7 King Street Christiansted, St. Croix U. S. Virgin Islands 00820 Counsel for Defendant - Leguillou WARREN B. COLE, ESQ. Isherwood, Hunter and Colianni 46 King Street Christiansted, St. Croix U. S. Virgin Islands 00820 Counsel for Defendant - Panthaky fy " — PP BENOIT v. PANTHAKY, et al. CIVIL NO. 976/1981 MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 95, 1984) This matter comes before the Court on defendant/appellant Tomas Leguillou's attorneys' petition for attorneys' fees. For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies the petition. FACTS Plaintiff, C. K. Benoit, filed a complaint to set aside a tax sale and for declaratory judgment. The property in question consisted of plots numbered 117 and 122 Estate St. George, Prince Quarter, St. Croix, United States Virgin. Islands. Defendant Leguillou was the purchaser of plot 122 at said tax sale. On October 4, 1983, this Court entered a judgment which declared, among other things, the tax sale of plot 122 Estate St. George to defendant Leguillou to be void and ordered that title to the property remain in the name of the plaintiff. In addition, as a condition precedent to the vacation of said tax sale, plaintiff was to reimburse Three Hundred Five Dollars ($305.00) to the defendant, such sum to represent the tax sale purchase price of the property. The order provided further that each party would bear its own attorney's fees and costs. _ BENOIT v. PANTHAKY, et al. CIVIL NO. 976/1981 Defendant then filed an appeal to the District Court. Defendant's attorneys, the law firm of Bryant, Lenahan and Eltman, now move this Court for attorneys' fees of Three Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($3,527.50), together with disbursements of Seventy Dollars ($70.00) and indemnification on behalf of the defendant. DISCUSSION Each party in a lawsuit ordinarily shall bear its own attorney's fees unless there is express statutory authorization to the contrary. This concept is recognized as the American Rule. In the Virgin Islands, such statutory authority is found in 5 V.1I.C. §541(b). Section 541 (b) provides, in relevant part, ",... there shall be allowed to the prevailing party in the judgment such sums as the court in its discretion may fix by way of indemnity for his attorney's fees in maintaining the action or defenses thereto." Plaintiffs may be considered prevailing parties for attorneys' fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit. Hensley v. Eckerhart, ior , 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939 (1983). The core issue in the instant matter was the validity of a tax sale BENOIT v. PANTHAKY, et al. CIVIL NO. 976/1981 wherein the 122. This Court defendant purchased plot invalidated the sale and returned title to the plaintiff. aie is clear that it was the plaintiff, and not the defendant, who — / prevailed on the merits. Hence, under both':5°"V.I.c% §541 (b) and the standards set forth in Hensley, supra, defendant would not be considered the prevailing party. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the petition for attorneys’ fees, disbursement and indemnification is hereby DENIED. ENTER RWIN J. SILVERLIGH Judge DATED: September,7j, 1984 i/ Indeed, it was the defendant who appealed this Court's decision.