USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX HARRIETT L SASSO ) Plaintiff ) CIVIL CASE NO SX 02 CV 538 V ) ) ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF EUPHITA O HACKETT ) POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY ) “fend“ ) 2020 v1 Super 51U MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER 1| 1 THIS MATTER was determined by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered June 25 2004 wherein the Superior Court, on the basis ofproofofownership by adverse possession from in or about 1973, pursuant to 28 V I C § 11, granted summary judgment and Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Defendant Euphita O Hackett is the owner of Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love Prince Quarter Frederiksted, St Croix On appeal by Plaintiff/Appellant Harriett L Sasso, the Appellate Division of the District Court ofthe Virgin Islands, by Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion and Order ofthe Court filed December 6, 2006, “conclude[d] that the trial court did not err in determining that Hackett became the adverse owner of certain property The Appellate Division remanded the matter with the limited instructions to identify spec1fically the precise property affected and to do equity considering Sasso’s payment of property taxes on the property 1 Those issues on remand are addressed herein and an Amended Judgment Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is entered herewith 1] 2 The long factual and procedural history of this 18 year old case is well known to the parties and set out thoroughly in the record and will not be repeated here Suffice it to say that Hackett had been adversely possessing Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love for a period of years in excess of the full 15 year statutory period prior to entry of the Judgment in Territorial Court Probate No 99/1997 (In 16 Estate ofJosephine Blackwell) by which Sasso was awarded the same property The trial court’s judgment entered accordingly was not disturbed on appeal 1 The Appellate Division’s Memorandum Opinion (D C Civ App No 2004/091) incorrectly states that Sasso paid property taxes on Plot 5 T Estate Upper Love, the adjacent plot titled to Defendant Hackett The record reflects that Sasso and her predecessors actually paid real property tax bills addressed and mailed to them for various years for tax parcel no 4 06303 0114 00, identified as Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love The Tax Assessor inaccurately issued the tax bills for that parcel for all years in issue as unimproved, even though the residence constructed by Defendant Hackett and her late husband, completed in 1980, was situated on Plot 5 U The Tax Assessor’s error was also manifest in the designation of Plot 5 T Estate Upper Love (tax parcel no 4 06302 0228 00) as improved property, which was taxed accordingly Memorandum Opinion and Order Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538 2020 VI Super 51U 11 3 An Evidentiary Hearing was held February 14, 2018 to address the limited issues remanded for consideration PlaintiffSasso appeared personally, represented by counsel, Mark L Milligan Esq Defendant Hackett appeared personally, represented by Yvette Ross Edwards Esq The parties were provided the opportunity to supplement the record after the Hearing, pursuant to a schedule requiring Plaintiff’s filing by March 2, 2018, following which Defendant could respond within 14 days Plaintiff submitted her Supplemental Brief on Remand, filed March 14, 2018 followed by her Amended Supplemental Briefon Remand, filed March 19, 2018 Sasso’s original Supplemental Brief was accompanied by her Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief Out ofTime, “so ordered” by the Court, entered March 16 2018 On March 20 2018, after the extension had been granted, Hackett filed her Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motlon to File Supplemental Brief Out of Time, followed by her March 23, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration of March 16, 2018 Order Granting Plaintiff‘s Motion for Extension ofTime to File Supplemental Brief Sasso filed her Opposition April 16 2018 and Hackett filed her Reply May 4, 2018 Considering the relevant factors with regard to Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file her post hearing brief as set forth in V I R Civ P 6(b)(1), that request was granted Because the Court perceives no clear error of law in granting the extension and no manifest injustice flowing therefrom, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied 114 Also filed March 14, 2018 was Plaintiff Sasso’s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Counterclaim Out of Time On March 20, 2018, Defendant Hackett filed her Opposition, to which Sasso filed her Reply on April 13 2018 This matter was tried, judgment was entered and appeal was determined, with remand for the limited purposes noted above The Appellate Division did not find error in the trial court’s entry ofjudgment in favor of Hackett and did not remand the case for new trial That is, in addition to being grossly out oftime by 14 years, because the substantive issues raised by Defendant’s Counterclaim were determined by the trial court and affirmed on appeal (without Plaintiff raising the issue of her purported lack of opportunity to file her answer), the filing of an answer now would be futile and serve no purpose Accordingly, Sasso’s Motion for Leave to File Answer will be denied ll 5 The issues on remand are addressed as follows Clarification of precise property affected Despite evidence of significant confusion not limited to the parties, but also on the part of Memorandum Opinion and Order Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538 2020 VI Super 51U others, including the Public Surveyor at the Department of Public Works, the Tax Assessor and Elizabeth Benjamin, predecessor in title ownership and former owner of both Plot 5 T and Plot 5 U the precise property that was the subject of the parties dispute and of the judgment entered June 25 2004 by the Memorandum Opinion and Order wherein Defendant Euphita O Hackett became owner by adverse possession is legally described as follows Plot No 5 U Estate Upper Love, Prlnce Quarter, St Croix, U S Virgin Islands, consisting of 0 500 U S acre, as more fully shown on OLG Drawing No 2606 dated April 9 1969 last revised May 17 1994 1| 6 Because trial court’s judgment awarding ownership of Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love to Defendant Hackett was not disturbed on appeal and is not affected by this limited remand, the £13 Pendens, recorded February 3, 2005 by Plaintiff Sasso in the Office ofthe Recorder of Deeds for St Croix, at PC 960, page 198, as document number 2005000573, is subject to discharge and the Amended Judgment Order entered herewith will discharge said L13 Pendens Consideration of the equities fl7 The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that Hackett became the owner of Plot 5 U by adverse possession but remanded the matter with the instruction that this Court “consider the equities of the case and the parties ” Specifically, the Appellate Division directed this Court to “determine whether it is fair for Sasso to take nothing ” 1] 8 Sasso urges that the interests ofjustice require that this Court revisit the merits of Hackett s adverse possession claim The trial court determined that Hackett had become the adverse owner of Plot 5 U, a determination with which the Appellate Division found no error The record herein was remanded for the limited purposes noted above This Court has been directed to make an additional finding as to the issue of the precise description of the property and to consider the equities to determine whether it is fair that Sasso take nothing in light of her payment of property taxes '1 his Court is without authority to amend, or as Sasso urges, in effect to overturn on this remand, the trial court’s ruling that Hackett was the owner by adverse possession of Plot 5 U See Hodge v Bluebeards Castle Inc 62 V I 671 684 (V l 2015) 1] 9 In the alternat1ve, on equitable grounds, Sasso seeks an award of adjoining Plot 5 T Estate Upper Love to herself Hackett and her late husband purchased Plot 5 T from Elizabeth Benjamin in Memorandum Opinion and Order Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538 2020 VI Super 51U 1972 The same year, Benjamin deeded Plot 5 U to Edna Sealey and Josephine Blackwell, as joint tenants with rights of survivorship Upon Sealey’s death, Blackwell became sole owner of Plot 5 U and Sasso’s claim as devisee arises from the 1998 adjudication of Blackwell’s estate in probate 1110 When Frank and Euphita Hackett sought to begin constructlon of their home in 1973, Benjamin directed them to the property they had purchased and they applied for and obtained the required permits from the Department of Public Works The home was completed in 1980 and Mr and Mrs Hackett moved in Hackett has lived there since However the residence was built not on Plot 5 T Estate Upper Love deeded to them by Elizabeth Benjamin but rather on Plot 5 U that Benjamin had deeded seven years earlier to Sasso’s predecessors it 11 From the start of construction in 1973, and for substantially more than the 15 year adverse possession term, no one questioned Hackett’s possession or ownership of Plot 5 U notwithstanding the fact that the possession was open and notorious The world, including Sasso and her predecessors in interest, were on notice from start of the construction of Hacketts’ residence in 1973 that Hackett claimed to be owner of that plot that was ultimately correctly identified as Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love if 12 ‘Because ofthe harsh consequences faced by the record owner, the statutory requirements are specifically calculated to give the record owner notice that someone else is claiming title to the property ” Mahabzr v Hezrs ofGeorge, 63 V I 651, 659 (V I 2015) (citations and internal quotations omitted) No notice of claim of title to property could be more suited to giving actual notice to a title owner of property than the adverse claimant constructing and inhabiting a private residence on the property 11 13 The consequences to the title owner are indeed harsh The law requires and Hackett supplied strict proof of her uninterrupted, exclusive, actual, physical adverse continuous and notorious possession of Plot 5 U under claim of title Because the trial court correctly found that Hackett satisfied all the statutory prerequisites, judgment of adverse ownership entered for Hackett as to Plot 5 U In the totality ofthese circumstances the Court does not find that Sasso is entitled to an equitable conveyance to her of Plot 5 T To grant such relief would be to reward the inattentiveness and disregard exhibited by Sasso and her predecessors over two decades with regard to the property deeded to them in 1972 Memorandum OpltllOIl and Order Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538 2020 VI Super 51U fl14 However, the record does reflect that Sasso and her predecessors paid property taxes on Plot 5 U for several years, which payments have redounded to the benefit of Hackett As such equity is best served by granting Sasso reimbursement for those property tax payments plus interest at the statutory rate from the date of each such payment Hackett will be required to reimburse Sasso for the following tax payments reflected in the record Tax Year Payment Amount Payment Date (interest accrues on each from date paid at 9%) 1988 $ 74 10 12/19/89 1991 $ 82 50 10/20/92 1992 $ 92 40 8/23/93 1994 $ 92 40 6/14/96 1998 $130 74 11/29/00 1999 $116 59 11/29/00 2001 $111 57 8/21/02 {I 15 Because the issues addressed on remand pursuant to the December 8, 2006 Order of the Appellate Division of the District Court ofthe Virgin Islands result in entry of an Amended Judgment Order, pursuant to VI R Civ P 58(a) that Amended iudgment Order 1s set out in a separate document, entered herewith 11 16 With regard to the Motions filed post remand, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of March 16, 2018 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension ofTime to File Supplemental Brief is DENIED It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Counterclaim Out of Time is DENIED DATED April ‘7 2020 DOUGLAS A BRADY UDGE ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Distribution List Clerk of the Court Mark L Milligan Esq Yvette Ross Edwards, Esq I ‘di'i‘ * I, «any... “41me . k S nervisor I / 2’0» IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX HARRIETT L SASSO ) Plaintiff ) CIVIL CASE NO SX 02 CV 538 ) V ) ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF EUPHITA O HACKETT ) POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY Defendant ) ) AMENDED JUDGMENT ORDER Consistent with the Memorandum Opinion entered herewith, the limited issues addressed on remand pursuant to the December 8, 2006 Order of the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D C Civ App No 2004/091) require entry of this Amended Judgment Order pursuant to V I R Civ P 58(a), amending in part the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Superior Court entered June 25, 2004 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the precise property affected in this matter which is owned by Euphita O Hackett, effective as of entry ofthe Order herein of June 25, 2004, is defined as follows Plot No 5U Estate Upper Love, Prince Quarter, St Croix, U S Virgin Islands, consisting of0 500 U S acre as more fully shown on OLG Drawing No 2606 dated April 9 1969 last revised May 17 1994 It is further ORDERED that the L13 Fem/ens against the foregoing property, recorded February 3, 2005 in the Office ofthe Recorder ofDeeds for St Croix, at PC 960, page 198 as document number 2005000573 is CANCELED and DISCHARGED It is further ORDERED that, in consideration of the equities of the case and the parties Plaintiff Harriett L Sasso shall have JUDGMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT of property taxes paid against Defendant Hackett, with interest at the legal rate (9% per annum) from the date ofeach payment to the date of entry of this Order, and at the rate of4% per annum hereafter until fully paid, in the following amounts Tax Year Payment Amount Payment Date (interest accrues on each from date paid at 9%) 1988 $ 74 10 12/19/89 1991 $ 82 50 10/20/92 1992 $ 92 40 8/23/93 1994 $ 92 40 6/14/96 1998 $130 74 11/29/00 1999 $116 59 11/29/00 2001 $111 57 8/21/02 DATED April 2 2020 ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES DOUGLAS A BRADY IUD E Clerk of the Court Distribution List a” g A Lula”; Al Mark L Milligan, Esq .011“ C er k upervisor V Yvette Ross Edwards Esq 17/: MO