USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX HENRY SCHUSTER ) Plaintiff, ) SX-13-CV-114 V. ) ) ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF DEED RENEE SCHUSTER, ) AND TO QUIET TITLE Defendant. ) VIRGINIA FIGUEROA, een Plaintiff, ) Vie ) ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF DEED RENEE SCHUSTER, ) AND TO QUIET TITLE Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER THESE CONSOLIDATED MATTERS came on for Bench Trial on September 13, 2016. Plaintiff Henry Schuster and Plaintiff Virginia Figueroa both appeared personally, together with their attorney, Yvette Ross-Edwards, Esq. Defendant in both cases Renee Schuster appeared personally, together with her attorney, Mark L. Milligan, Esq. By his First Amended Complaint in SX-13-CV-114 (Plot 197 Complaint), Plaintiff Henry Schuster alleged in two counts: (1) that the Deed of Gift, dated June 21, 2010 (Plot 197 Deed), by which Henry Schuster conveyed Plot 197 Estate Richmond, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (Plot 197) to Renee Schuster, was invalid and voidable as it was induced by Defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation; and (2) that the Plot 197 Deed was not executed in front of witnesses or a notary public in violation of 28 V.I. §§ 42 and 84. The Plot 197 Complaint sought judgment: canceling and declaring void the Plot 197 Deed; quieting Henry Schuster’s title to Plot 197 against Defendant; adjudging Henry Schuster to be owner, entitled to possession of Plot 197; declaring that Defendant has no estate or interest in Plot 197; and awarding Henry Schuster costs of the action. By her First Amended Complaint in SX-13-CV-132 (Plot 223 Complaint), Plaintiff Virginia Figueroa alleged in two counts: (1) that the Deed of Gift, dated October 12, 2011 (Plot 223 Deed), by which Virginia Figueroa conveyed Plot 223 Estate Richmond, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (Plot 223) to Renee Schuster, was invalid and voidable as it was induced by Defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation; and (2) that the Plot 223 Deed was not executed in front of witnesses or a notary public in violation of 28 V.I. Code §§ 42 and 84. The Plot 223 Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER Complaint sought judgment: canceling and declaring void the Plot 223 Deed; quieting Virginia Figueroa’s title to Plot 223 against Defendant; adjudging Virginia Figueroa to be owner, entitled to possession of Plot 223; declaring that Defendant has no estate or interest in Plot 223; and awarding Virginia Figueroa costs of the action. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court permitted the parties the opportunity to submit post-trial briefs. No brief has been filed by either party in either case. Having heard and considered the evidence, the Court makes and enters the following findings of fact, analysis, and renders judgment in each case as set forth herein. Findings of Fact 1. Henry Schuster was born January 19, 1932, and is a widower. He resides at Plot 223, title to which he conveyed in 2010 to his daughter Virginia Figueroa, reserving unto himself a life estate. 2. Plot 223 is immediately adjacent to Plot 197, title to which Henry Schuster conveyed in 2010 to Renee Schuster by the Plot 197 Deed, which is contested herein. 3. Virginia Figueroa resides at Plot 113J Estate Whim, Frederiksted, Virgin Islands. 4. Renee Schuster is the niece of Henry Schuster, and was raised by Henry Schuster and his late wife at Plot 223, from the time she was two months old until she graduated from high school. 5. Albertina Chambers was the sister of Henry Schuster, and resided at Plot 197 until her death in 2012. 6. Renee Schuster moved in 2010 from her home in Estate Clifton Hill, St. Croix, and returned to live with Henry Schuster and his wife at Plot 223, remaining until approximately February 2013. Henry Schuster’s health had begun to deteriorate with his aging. He had trouble walking, had stopped driving and eventually became confined to a wheelchair. Henry Schuster suffers from glaucoma, has poor eyesight, and cannot read documents without assistance. During her time in the home, Renee Schuster took care of the house for Henry Schuster and his wife and cared for their needs generally; she also helped Albertina Chambers. Renee Schuster did the household cooking, cleaning and washing for Mr. and Mrs. Schuster. Mrs. Schuster died during the time that Renee Schuster resided with them. Renee Schuster also assisted Henry Schuster with banking and other matters and, on Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER several occasions, was granted power of attorney to perform banking duties on Henry Schuster’s behalf. Anita Roberts is Virginia Figueroa’s daughter, and has cared for Henry Schuster in the home at Plot 223 since approximately February 2013. 8. Kadheem Hennemann is Renee Schuster’s son and Virginia Figueroa’s cousin. 10. 11. 12. In 2010, Henry Schuster met at his home on two occasions with his attorney, Gregory E. Miller, Esq., to discuss the disposition of Plot 197 and Plot 223. Henry Schuster informed Attorney Miller that he wanted to give property interests to members of his family, but that he did not intend for any property to be conveyed until after his death. On his second visit, Attorney Miller brought documents for Henry Schuster to sign. Henry Schuster assumed and understood that Attorney Miller had prepared the documents in accordance with his instructions to the effect of transferring property after his death, rather than during his lifetime. During that visit, Henry Schuster called Renee Schuster at her job and asked her to come to the house. From the house, Renee Schuster called Elaine Spencer to ask her to come over to notarize documents. While the documents were signed, Elaine Spencer was outside the room on the front porch to the house. Henry Schuster tried to read the documents that Attorney Miller had prepared, but was unable to do so because of his cataracts. Neither Attorney Miller nor any other person present read the documents to Henry Schuster, nor did Henry Schuster ask anyone to read the documents to him. Attorney Miller instructed Henry Schuster to sign the two documents in several places, and Henry Schuster did so. Only later did Henry Schuster learn that the documents that Attorney Miller had prepared at his request had not been prepared the way that he had intended. Henry Schuster testified that he told Attorney Miller that he did not want to sign his property over to others during his lifetime, and believes that Attorney Miller “is a liar.” Although Henry Schuster’s attorney caused a subpoena to issue requiring Attorney Miller to give evidence at trial, Attorney Miller was not called as a witness. Henry Schuster believed that his brother, Renee Schuster’s father, and her mother did nothing for Renee Schuster. Henry Schuster considered himself like a father to Renee Schuster, and Renee Schuster considered Henry Schuster “a good father.” Henry Schuster wanted to make sure that Renee Schuster got some property when he died. Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER 13. The Plot 197 Deed, admitted into evidence, was executed by Henry Schuster, as grantor, on June 21, 2010, conveying Plot 197 in fee simple to Renee Schuster, reserving a life estate in the property to Henry Schuster’s sister, Albertina Chambers. The Plot 197 Deed included a Certificate of Value on its second page and an attached Affidavit as its third page, each of which was also signed by Henry Schuster. Attorney Miller was one of two witnesses to the Plot 197 Deed. Brenda Powell, a co-worker of Elaine Spencer and Renee Schuster, was the second witness. The Plot 197 Deed was notarized, as was the attached Affidavit of Henry Schuster, by Elaine C. Spencer on June 21, 2010. Attorney Miller had the Plot 197 Deed recorded at the Office of the Recorder of Deeds at 12:08 pm on July 2, 2010, as document number 2010002551. 14. By Deed of Gift dated June 21, 2010, Henry Schuster conveyed Plot 223 to Virginia Figueroa.! That Deed of Gift reserved a life estate unto Henry Schuster and his spouse, Ellen Wells Schuster. Henry Schuster also signed a Certificate of Value and an attached Affidavit as part of the Deed of Gift to Virginia Figueroa. Attorney Miller was one of the two witnesses to the June 21, 2010 Deed of Gift from Henry Schuster to Virginia Figueroa. Renee Schuster was the second witness. The Deed of Gift and attached Affidavit were notarized by Elaine C. Spencer on June 21, 2010. That Deed of Gift was recorded at the Office of the Recorder of Deeds at 12:08 pm on July 2, 2010, as document number 2010002552. 15. At some date after Henry Schuster conveyed Plot 223 to Virginia Figueroa, Henry Schuster told Renee Schuster that he was upset that Virginia Figueroa was not coming to visit. Henry Schuster asked Renee Schuster to speak with Virginia Figueroa about transferring Plot 223 back to Henry Schuster. He wanted to make repairs to the home and to make it wheelchair accessible, and said he would obtain a bank loan using the property as collateral. Virginia ' Evidence of the details of the conveyance by Henry Schuster of Plot 223 to Virginia Figueroa was not presented at trial. The Court takes judicial notice of the official records of the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for the District of St. Croix, within the Office of the Lt. Governor of the Virgin Islands, to determine certain details regarding that conveyance. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)—which the Virgin Islands has adopted—permits courts to take judicial notice of certain facts. Judicial notice is appropriate when the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. See People of the Virgin Islands ex rel. J.J.J., 59 V.1. 319, 329 (V.I. 2013). Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER 16. 17. Figueroa responded to Renee Schuster to bring the deed over to her home in Whim and she would sign it. Renee Schuster received from Attorney Miller and Henry Schuster an unsigned Deed of Gift regarding Plot 223, prepared by Attorney Miller, to be taken to Virginia Figueroa for signature. Renee Schuster had no discussion with Attorney Miller about contents of the deed. At all times relevant to all transactions regarding Plot 197 and Plot 223, Attorney Miller represented Henry Schuster and never represented Renee Schuster or any other person. By the language of the Deed of Gift prepared by Attorney Miller, Virginia Figueroa would transfer Plot 223 to Renee Schuster, not to Henry Schuster. Henry Schuster told Renee Schuster that he had instructed Attorney Miller to put everything in the name of Renee Schuster since she and her son were the only ones helping him. Virginia Figueroa testified that she and Henry Schuster had a “misunderstanding” that occurred “around 2012” or “might have been earlier.” On October 12, 2011, Renee Schuster and her son Kadheem Hennemann visited Virginia Figueroa at the Governor Juan F. Luis Hospital, where Virginia Figueroa was a patient, being discharged the same day. She was already dressed in her “regular clothes” and was awaiting her ride before being discharged. Renee Schuster brought with her the unsigned Deed of Gift prepared by Attorney Miller. Virginia Figueroa asked Renee Schuster where to sign; and then she signed the Deed of Gift, including the Certificate of Value on the second page and Affidavit on the third page, without reading the document, although she had the opportunity to do so. There was no discussion of the contents of the Deed of Gift. Virginia Figueroa was not coerced into signing the Deed of Gift, and her health did not prevent her from knowing what she was doing. Renee Schuster and Kadheem Hennemann signed the Deed of Gift as witnesses. No notary public was present. Renee Schuster returned the executed and witnessed, but not notarized, Deed of Gift to Attorney Miller. That Deed of Gift was subsequently notarized by Geraldine Mae Steele, as is confirmed by her notary log, and her testimony presented by deposition. Geraldine Mae Steele was not at the hospital when the Deed of Gift was executed by Virginia Figueroa. She has no recollection of who brought her the document to notarize, and has no memory of notarizing the document. Attorney Miller caused the fully executed and notarized Deed of Gift to be recorded on October 28, 2011, the same Plot 223 Deed admitted into evidence at trial. Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER 18. Subsequent to the recording of the Plot 197 Deed and the Plot 223 Deed, Plaintiffs Henry Schuster and Virginia Figueroa discovered that Plot 197 and Plot 223, respectively, were no longer in their names when they called the Recorder of Deeds and were advised that both properties were titled in Renee Schuster’s name. Discussion Fraudulent Misrepresentation Plot 197 Henry Schuster alleges that he relied upon Renee Schuster for his maintenance, care and support. Plot 197 Complaint 4 5. He alleges that the Plot 197 Deed was prepared contrary to his wishes, expressed several times, that he did not want to transfer Plot 197 to Renee Schuster until after he and his wife had died. He relied upon his attorney’s representations that the Plot 197 Deed did that but, to the contrary, the Plot 197 Deed conveyed all of Henry Schuster’s interest in Plot 197 to Renee Schuster, reserving a life estate to Albertina Chambers, without interest reserved to Henry Schuster. Jd. ¢ 8. When he learned of this “mistake,” Henry Schuster alleges that he contacted Renee Schuster and requested that she transfer the property back to him, but she refused. Id. 9. Henry Schuster alleges that Renee Schuster made representations to him, upon which she knew that he would rely, and upon which he did justifiably rely, to his detriment. Id. § 12-13. “A confidential relationship exists between two persons when one has gained the confidence of the other and purports to act or advise with the other's interest in mind.” Ross v. Hodge, 58 V.1. 292, 303 (V.I. 2013) (citing Francois v. Francois, 16 V.I. 130, 141 (3d Cir. 1979) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TRUSTS § 2 cmt. b (1959) (citation omitted)). The evidence establishes that a confidential relationship existed between Henry Schuster and Renee Schuster. Nevertheless, “the bare existence of a confidential relationship between a grantor and a grantee, does not standing alone, raise a presumption of undue influence. Therefore, a deed will not be set aside merely because a grantor and grantee sustained a confidential relationship where the evidence shows no abuse of the confidence.” Bell v. Bell, 1985 V.I. LEXIS 38, at *5 (V.1 Super. Ct. 1985). The effect of the existence of a confidential relationship between a grantor and grantee “is simply to impose a burden upon the party benefitting from the transaction of proving that he took no unfair advantage of his relationship with the other.” Ross, 58 V.I. at 304 (citation omitted). When challenged, “the party benefitting from the transaction” must “show, by clear and Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER convincing evidence, the absence of undue influence,” to avoid the imposition of a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment. Jd. Here, clear and convincing evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Renee Schuster did not unduly influence Henry Schuster in the preparation, execution, and delivery of the Plot 197 Deed to her. Rather, the evidence is consistent with allegations of the Plot 197 Complaint that the Plot 197 Deed was the product of discussions that took palace exclusively between Henry Schuster and his attorney, Gregory Miller, without influence from or participation of Renee Schuster in those client-attorney communications. The evidence at trial established that Henry Schuster intended to see that title to the property was transferred to Renee Schuster. Henry Schuster testified that the Plot 197 Deed as prepared was a “mistake” from what he intended, because he did not intend to transfer any property during his lifetime. Yet, any such mistake was between Henry Schuster and Attorney Miller, and not as the result of any undue influence or fraud on the part of Renee Schuster. It is worthy of note that no claim was brought against Attorney Miller for drafting the document contrary to the instructions of his client, nor was Attorney Miller’s testimony presented at trial. Nonetheless, Henry Schuster’s claim must fail that the Plot 197 Deed be “canceled” and “declared and adjudged void” on the basis of the fraudulent misrepresentation of Renee Schuster. Plot 223 Virginia Figueroa alleges that the Plot 223 Deed is invalid and voidable in that it was procured by Renee Schuster’s material misrepresentation. Plot 223 Complaint J 7. Specifically, Virginia Figueroa alleges that Renee Schuster falsely represented that Henry Schuster needed to get back title to Plot 223 so that he could obtain a mortgage loan, knowing that Virginia Figueroa would be influenced and would acquiesce and convey Plot 223 to Renee Schuster. Id. $§ 8, 12. Virginia Figueroa further alleges that the Plot 223 Deed was procured from an attorney without her knowledge and consent. Id. ¢ 9. Trial evidence was conflicting; thus, the Court makes no findings concerning Henry Schuster’s intentions to use Plot 223 as collateral for a bank loan to make repairs and improvements to Plot 223. Renee Schuster testified that Henry Schuster expressed those intentions to her, and Virginia Figueroa testified that Renee Schuster passed on to her Henry Schuster’s intentions regarding Plot 223. Henry Schuster testified that he never told anyone that he intended to take a Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER bank loan to improve Plot 223, but that he could not recall whether he asked Virginia Figueroa to transfer Plot 223 back to him. The evidence does establish that in June 2010, Henry Schuster conveyed Plot 223 to Virginia Figueroa. At some date thereafter, Henry Schuster again contacted Attorney Miller to prepare a second deed by which Virginia Figueroa would transfer Plot 223. Henry Schuster asked Renee Schuster to contact Virginia Figueroa about transferring Plot 223, which Renee Schuster did, and Virginia Figueroa agreed to meet her, and to sign the deed. The Plot 223 Deed was prepared by Attorney Miller on behalf of Henry Schuster without any discussions with Renee Schuster about its contents. Henry Schuster and Attorney Miller together delivered the unsigned deed to Renee Schuster to obtain Virginia Figueroa’s signature. At all times, Attorney Miller represented Henry Schuster and never acted as attorney to Renee Schuster. Virginia Figueroa knew that the document presented to her by Renee Schuster on October 12, 2011, was a deed by which she would convey title to Plot 223. She testified that because she understood that the Plot 223 Deed transferred title to Plot 223 back to Henry Schuster, she chose not to read it before signing. Although a hospital patient when she signed the Plot 223 Deed, Virginia Figueroa was not under medication or suffering from a medical condition such that her capacity to comprehend what was happening was compromised. In fact, she was dressed in “regular” clothes and awaiting discharge and a ride home. When Renee Schuster presented the Plot 223 Deed to Virginia Figueroa, Renee Schuster made no representations about its contents or effect. Virginia Figueroa asked no questions about the contents. Renee Schuster showed Virginia Figueroa where to sign on each of the three pages of the Plot 223 Deed. On the first page, in bold letters, and on the third page above the signature line, the fact of the conveyance to Renee Schuster is plain. Nowhere in the Plot 223 Deed does Henry Schuster’s name appear. “Where a signer knows the general character of an instrument but is deceived as to the exact contents of the instrument, the general test for fraud is whether the signer was misled in some material particular and whether the misrepresentations of the other party or parties expressly or by necessary implication negative the existence of provisions which differentiate the instrument from one which the signer supposed he was executing.” Ford v. Brewster, 9 V.I. 75, 79 (V.I. Mun. Ct. 1972) (citing 23 AM.JuR.2d, Section 142 at 189). Here, the substantive provisions of the Plot 223 Deed are clear on its face. Virginia Figueroa chose to ignore the apparent effect of the document that she signed in three places on its three pages. The Court cannot find fraud where Renee Schuster Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER handed the patently clear Plot 223 Deed to Virginia Figueroa without discussion of the contents and reviewed with her each of the places to sign. To the extent that Virginia Figueroa did not comprehend what she signed, her lack of comprehension was occasioned by her casual indifference to the obvious language before her, rather than fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Renee Schuster, and her claim in this regard must fail. Violations of 28 V.LC. §§ 42 and 84 Trial evidence established that on June 21, 2010, Henry Schuster signed the Plot 197 Deed at his home in the presence of two witnesses, his attorney Gregory Miller and Brenda Powell. The 197 Deed was acknowledged then and there by notary public Elaine C. Spencer. Trial evidence, including testimony received by deposition, established that on October 12, 2011, Virginia Figueroa signed the Plot 223 Deed in her room at the Juan Luis Hospital, in the presence of Renee Schuster and her son Kadheem Hennemann, both of whom signed the Plot 223 Deed as witnesses. Virginia Figueroa signed as Grantor on the first page, and signed the Certificate of Value and Affidavit on the second and third pages. No notary public was present at the execution of the Plot 223 Deed. Although the Plot 223 Deed was recorded with the notary seal and signature of notary public Geraldine Mae Steele affixed, the signed and witnessed Plot 223 Deed was delivered by Renee Schuster to Attorney Gregory Miller without acknowledgment. Conveyance of real property in the Virgin Islands is governed by various statutory provisions, including the Virgin Islands statute of frauds: .. no estate or interest in real property ... can be created, granted, assigned, transferred, surrendered, or declared, otherwise than ... by a deed of conveyance or other instrument in writing, signed by the person creating, granting, assigning, transferring, surrendering, or declaring the same ... and executed with such formalities as are required by law. 28 V.LC. § 241(a). A conveyance of lands, or any interest therein, may be made by deed, signed by the person from whom the estate or interest is intended to pass, being of lawful age, or by his lawful agent or attorney and acknowledged or proved, and recorded as directed in this title, without any other act or ceremony. 28 V.LC. § 41. Deeds executed within the Virgin Islands of lands or any interest in lands therein shall be executed in the presence of two witnesses, who shall subscribe their names to the same as such; and the persons executing such deeds may acknowledge the execution thereof as provided in chapter 5 of this title. Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER 28 V.L.C. § 42(a) (emphasis added). Acknowledgements by notaries public are to be performed as follows: The person taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging appeared before him and acknowledged he executed the instrument; and the person acknowledging was known to the person taking the acknowledgment or that the person taking the acknowledgment has satisfactory evidence that the person acknowledging was the person described in and who executed the instrument. 28 V.LC. § 84 Both deeds as recorded and presented into evidence appear to comply with the foregoing provisions. However, the Plot 223 Deed was not in fact executed in the presence of a notary public and its execution was not acknowledged, as confirmed by the testimony of Renee Schuster and Virginia Figueroa. The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has recently had the opportunity to review and reiterate the necessary prerequisites to the effective transfer of real property in the Virgin Islands by deed of conveyance. In Alexander v. Alexander, the Court recited the language of the statute of frauds as prohibiting “the transfer of an interest in real property unless the transfer is effected by operation of law, or by ‘a deed of conveyance or other instrument in writing, signed by [the grantor] ... and executed with such formalities as are required by law.’” 2016 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 35, at *12 (V.I. 2016) (quoting 28 V.LC. § 241(a), citing Harvey v. Christopher, 55 V.I. 565, 574 (V.I. 2011) and King v. Appleton, 61 V.I. 339, 347 (V.I. 2014)). Those formalities required by law for conveyance of real property by deed are set forth in 28 V.I.C. § 42(a). To be effective, a deed “shall be executed in the presence of two witnesses who shall subscribe their names to the same as such; and the persons executing such deeds may acknowledge the execution thereof...” (emphasis added). In a case of first impression more than 25 years ago, Judge Finch held that “The words ‘shall be executed in the presence of two witnesses who shall subscribe their names to the same as such’ indicate a manifestation of mandatory legislative intent.” Simmonds v. Simmonds, 25 V.1. 3, 5 (V.I. Terr. Ct. 1990). The Supreme Court confirms that reading of the statute. “The meaning of section 42 is plain; it requires that two separate individuals, who witness a person sign a deed, ‘subscribe their names to the [deed] as such.’” Alexander, 2016 V.1. Supreme LEXIS 35, at *12-13. The omission of a mandatory formality required by law is fatal to the validity of the instrument. Jd. at *16-17; see, also, Milligan v. Khodra, 46 V1. 305, 318 (D.V.L. App. Div. 2004). Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER Yet, the plain language of the 28 V.LC. § 42(a) that mandates that two witnesses’ signatures be affixed as a prerequisite to the validity of a deed conveying Virgin Islands real property permits but does not require that the deed be acknowledged. “When interpreting these statues, we must first “determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning. If the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent, no further inquiry is needed.”” Alexander, 2016 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 35, at *11 (quoting Brady v. Gov't of the V.I., 57 V.1. 433, 441 (V.I. 2012)). Because the statutory language has a plain and unambiguous meaning, we need inquire no further. A purported deed transferring Virgin Islands real property fails if it lacks the signatures of two subscribing witnesses. However, such a deed may be sufficient to pass legal title if subscribing witness signatures are present, even in the absence of the acknowledgment of a notary public. Limited case law is consistent. See Callwood v. Callwood 3 V.1. 287, 291 (D.V.I. 1958) (“The fact that [the deed] was not then acknowledged or recorded... did not affect its validity as a conveyance binding upon the parties to it.”); Dowling v. Edney, 2000 V.I. LEXIS 18, at *8, 9 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2000) (“A defective acknowledgment by itself does not render a deed void.... [A]lthough a deed must be executed in order to be effective, a review of Title 28 reveals that a correct acknowledgment is not necessary for a valid execution.”). Because the Plot 223 Deed was executed by Virginia Figueroa in the presence of two witnesses, the Plot 223 Deed was executed in conformity with Virgin Islands law to effectively convey Plot 223 to Renee Schuster. Conclusion The Court finds that trial evidence established that Renee Schuster did not unduly influence or fraudulently induce Henry Schuster with regard to the preparation, execution and delivery of the Plot 197 Deed. Trial evidence also established that Renee Schuster did not unduly influence or made fraudulent misrepresentations to Virginia Figueroa with regard to the preparation, execution and delivery of the Plot 223 Deed. The Court further finds that the Plot 197 Deed and the Plot 223 Deed were executed in conformity with statutory requirements, in that each was signed by the grantor in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. The fact that the Plot 223 Deed was not acknowledged by a notary public at the time and place of execution does not render it invalid between the parties to the instrument. Schuster v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-114; Figueroa v. Schuster, SX-13-CV-132 MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint of Henry Schuster in SX-13-CV-114 is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint of Virginia Figueroa in SX-13-CV-132 is DISMISSED with prejudice. January / & 2017 GL. _Q/—4 DOUGLAS A. BRADY Judge of the Superior Co ha ATTEST: ESTRELLA GEORGE Acting Clerk of the Court —— By oS a, eg ee y J —. 2 Ce — i a, erk Supervisok /7