USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN SHARLINE L ROGERS )CASE NO ST 2017 CV 00337 ) Plaintiff ) ) ACTION FOR DECLARATORY vs ) JUDGMENT ) GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES I RETIREMENT ) SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ) ISLANDS and the GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ) EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE ) UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS BOARD OF ) TRUSTEES ) ) ___.__.________Defew__&n_ts__) Cite as 2022 VI Supel 52U MEMORANDUM OPINION {11 THIS MATTER is before the Court on 1 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment ( Motion for Summary Judgment ) and Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment ( Memorandum ) filed on December 12 2018 2 Defendant Government Employees Retirement S) stem Board Of Trustees (hereinafter The Board ’) Opposition To Plaintiff‘s Motion For Summary Judgment and Memorandum OfLaw In Support Of The Board 3 Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment filed on January 25 2019 3 Defendant 5 [Government Employees Retirement System of the Virgin Islands] Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary filed on January 25 2019 4 Plaintiff’s Reply To The Government Employ ees [sic] Retirement System Board Of Trusttees [sic] Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment filed on February 7 2019 and 5 Plaintiff’s Reply To The Government Employees [sic] Retirement System s l V I Code Ann tit 3 § 701 states [t]he 5) Stem created under this chapter shall have the powers and privileges of a corporation subject as provided herem to the control of the Board of Trustees thereof and shall be known and designated as the Government Employees Retirement System of the Virgin Islands In other words there is no apostrophe ( ) after Employees Rogers v GERS er a] Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment filed on February 7 2019 112 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment and order (1) the Defendants to return the $16 139 00 paid by Plaintiff to GERS for her time at the District Court of the Virgin Islands (2) the Defendants to provide an accounting of the amount of interest that accrued during the period Defendants retained and had the use of Plaintiff’s funds; and (3) the Defendants to pay to Plaintiff the amount of interest that actually accrued on the erroneously collected payment of $16 139 00 I INTRODUCTION 113 On July 27 2017 Plaintiff Sharline L Rogers ( Rogers ) filed a Complaint against Defendants Government Employees Retirement System of the United States Virgin Islands ( GERS ’), the Government Employees Retirement System of the United States Virgin Islands ( the Board ) Defendant Austin L Nibbs in his capacity as Administrator/CEO of GERS and Defendant Wilbur K Callender in his capacity as Chairperson of the Board 2 On August 3 2017, Rogers filed an Amended Complaint removing ing Mr Nibbs and Mr Callender as Defendants 3 114 Rogers states that she was employed by the District Court of the Virgin Islands from September 1990 through August 1993 and in 2004 she inquired with GERS whether she might be able to receive credited service towards her GERS retirement fund for the time she was employed at the District Court of the Virgin Islands 4 Rogers was informed by letter dated February 27, 2006 that she could make contributions for her non credited service up to $16 139 00, which Rogers elected to do through payroll deductions and a payment in May 2007 and July 2007 until the full $16 139 00 was paid off Rogers was then informed by letter dated August 23 2016 that a GERS employee had made an error in allowing Rogers to be credited for her District Court employment and Rogers subsequently requested a refund of the $16 139 00 along with a 9% per annum interest rate pursuant to V 1 CODE ANN tit 3 § 951(a) 6 115 On September 28 2016 the GERS Administrator indicated GERS would return the money at 2% interest, given GERS authority to set the interest rate a member receives when he or she withdraws from service pursuant to 3 V I C § 713(a) 7 Rogers informed the GERS Administrator in an October 7 2016 letter that she was not withdrawing from service, so the 2% interest rate was not applicable 8 Rogers argues that because even GERS admits that [t1here is no provision in title 3 Virgin Islands Code chapter 27 that sets the rate of interest that is due on P1 sCompl 1 Pl sAm Compl 1 4 Pl 5 Mem 2 3 P1 3 Mem 2 6 Pl 5 Mem 3 7 Pl 5 Mem 3 8 Pl 5 Mem 3 Rogers v GERS et a] Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion Page 3 0f 11 monies contributed to the [GERS] for non credited [service] on GERS erroneous[] advice that it was permissible,’ the provision in 11 V I C § 951(a) controls 9 That provision provides that the rate of interest shall be nine percent (9%) per annum on all monies which become due 10 116 Rogers also argues that she is due prejudgment interest, both under 11 V I C §951(a) and as an equitable remedy under a theory of unjust enrichment ” Rogers calculates that at her 9% interest rate she is due a total of $32 150 28 which is $16 217 21 plus interest of $15 993 21 '2 The $16 217 21 amount was calculated by adding a 2007 payment total of $14 400 90 to the 2006 payment total of$1 816 31 13 117 GERS admits that it informed Rogers through a February 27 2006 letter that total contributions due to the system for non credited time at the District Court, WAPA, and the Virgin Islands Legislature was $16 139 00 '4 GERS disputes that this total only reflects Rogers non credited service for her employment at the District Court 1‘ GERS states in subsequent correspondence it informed Rogers that several errors were made by the staff of GERS Member Services in calculating her non credited time and that she was never eligible to receive credited time for her service with the U S District Court '6 GERS further states that in response to Rogers September 9 2016 letter requesting a refund and [p]ursuant t0 Resolution No 09 2009 ’ GERS determined that it would refund Rogers the sum of $16 139 00 at a two percent (2%) interest rate 17 GERS states that on May 10 2017 GERS sent Rogers a check for $23 404 44 which was rejected by Rogers on June 6 2017 ‘8 118 GERS states that its employees were improperly applying a 1966 law that allowed federal employees who moved to the territorial government to get credit towards their retirement fund for their federal employment ‘9 The law which became 3 V I C § 704(h) had a sunset provision that voided the law after three (3) years, although it was not removed from the code until Act no 6794 in 2005 after Rogers first inquiry but before her second inquiry 20 GERS states that the first issue of material fact is Rogers’ misinterpretation of the February 27 2006 letter, which calculated the missing contributions for her entire case and not just the U S District Court time 2‘ GERS states that only $10 947 06 should be refunded reflecting her District Court time as the total $16 139 00 9 Pl 5 Mem 4 '0 11 VIC §951(a) “ Pl 5 Mem 9 l7 '7 Pl 5 Mem 19 ‘3 Pl 5 Mem n 17 ‘4 Def 3 Opp n 4 ‘3 Def 3 Opp n 2 1" Def 5 Opp n 4 17Def sOpp n4 6 ‘8 Def 5 Opp n 6 ‘9 Def 3 Opp n 7 7" Def 3 Opp n 8 7‘ Def’s Opp n 8 Rogers v GERS e! (11 Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion amount was calculated also looking at her time at ‘WAPA and the V I Legislature ”22 119 GERS further argues that the only allowable interest payments are when a non vested member leaves the system and that there are no other provisions in the code relating to refunds which shows the Legislature 5 clear intent that interest should not be given for other instances of refunds such as an over payment 23 GERS states that there is no statutory authority for interest on an overpayment of contribution and 11 V I C § 951 does not apply because none of its requirements has been met, since there is a discrepancy as to when the contract between the government and the plaintiff actual [sic] begins 24 1110 GERS cites to Kendall i The Supet 10} Court ofthe VI 2‘ where the Court ruled that money does not become due under the retirement contract until a person has applied for an annuity therefore, no money has become due and 11 V I C § 951 is not applicable 26 Further, since the duty created by the contract is to provide payment of retirement annuities and the time of performance has not yet arrived there is no breach of the contract 27 GERS argues that Rogers cannot succeed on an unjust enrichment claim because a contract exists and unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy and thus it would be inappropriate to apply it because a legal remedy exists 28 GERS also argues that a nine percent (9%) interest rate is extremely exorbitant” and that GERS is responsible for securing the financial future of its members and their beneficiaries’ so [a]ny amount awarded will reduce the ability of GERS to fund annuities 2° Lastly GERS argues that the ERISA’ statute is not applicable to GERS and therefore cases cited by Rogers that feature ERISA have no bearing on the case 30 1111 The Board argues that while there is no other mention of refund in the GERS enabling statute the spirit of § 7l3(a) was meant to address refunds generally ’ and as the only section that explicitly addresses refunds in chapter 27 the regular interest set by the Board pursuant to that section is the interest rate to be used when returning refunds 3‘ The Board also argues that prejudgment interest should not be granted because exceptional and unusual circumstances exist” making the award inequitable 32 These circumstances include the mistake by the GERS member who informed Rogers she could receive non credited service for work at the District Court GERS is currently experiencing financial strain and such an award may adversely affect members Def 5 Opp n 8 Def 5 Opp n 9 10 4Def sOppn 10 ll 5 Civil No 2010109 201.: U S Dist LEXIS 27320 (D V I 2013) 6Def sOpp n1213 ’7 Def 5 Opp n13 ’3 Def 5 Opp n14 9 Def 5 Opp n 15 0 Def 3 Opp n 16 " Def Board 5 Opp n 5 ’7 Def Board 5 Opp n 6 Rogers v GERS et a! Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion including Rogers and the 2% interest is just and equitable as it is the current rate set by GERS 3’3 {[12 The Board also argues that Rogers and GERS entered into a contract upon the payment of $16 139 00 whereby Rogers received service credit towards retirement the time for performance was not ascertained, and the contract was silent as to damages 34 The Board states that because the law is silent on damages the Court should apply the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 354(2), which states that such interest may be allowed as justice requires on the amount that would have been just compensation had it been paid when performance was due 3‘ 1113 The Board further argues that if the Court is persuaded by Rogers unjust enrichment claim the Court should follow the example outlined in Addie t Kajer36 where when performance on a contract is discharged because of impracticability frustration of performance non occurrence of a condition or disclaimer the party receives back whatever benefit the party has already conferred 37 The Board states that Rogers has conferred $16 139 00 to GERS and thus an adequate remedy under unj ust enrichment is the return of this money to Rogers 38 1114 In her Reply Rogers says that GERS acknowledges that in 2004 when [she] inquired about receiVing credited service for her District Court of the Virgin Islands employment it was the GERS s practice to grant credited service for employment with the federal government ’ and that it appears that this practice continued until 2015 39 Second Rogers states that there is absolutely no indication in Ms Holder 3 letter that the $16 139 [Rogers] paid included missing contributions from the District C ourt of the Virgin Islands the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority and the Legislate [sic] of the Virgin Islands as the letter sets forth her entire employment history even projecting [Rogers ] employment with the Legislature of the Virgin Islands to a future date ’ and that “[a]t a subsequent meeting with Mrs Holder which is evidenced in the February 27 2005 correspondence from Mrs Holder, Mrs Holder advised [Rogers] that [Rogers] would have to pay $16,139 to the GERS to receive credited service for [Rogers’] employment at the District Court ”40 1115 Further Rogers asserts that the Authorization she executed for non credited service specifies that she was authorizing the GERS to start payroll deductions for payment of [her] non credited service time to pay off [her] prior service balance 0f$16 139 00 4‘ Rogers also states that there is no provision in the Virgin Islands Code that allows for interest on contributions made erroneously to the GERS because there will not be a provision [prOViding] for interest for a Def Board 5 Opp n 6 4 Def Board 5 Opp n 7 ’ RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 354(2) (1981) Def Board 3 Opp n 7 6 757 F 3d 854 (2013) 3” Def Board 5 Opp n 9 ’3 Def Board 5 Opp n 10 9 Pl 5 Reply 1 40 P1 5 Reply 2 4‘ Pl 5 Reply 2 3 Rogers v GERS er a! Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion particular circumstance if the Legislature of the Virgin Islands did not anticipate such an occurrence ’42 1116 Rogers agrees that GERS has not breached its duty to [Rogers] to provide [Rogers] with a retirement annuity, a disability annuity or any other benefit’ but, rather, Rogers contends and the GERS Board of Trustees has acknowledged that the GERS and [Rogers] entered into a contract whereby [Rogers] would pay the GERS $16 139 and [Rogers] would receive credited service for the District Court employment ”43 Rogers states therefore that pre judgment interest is awardable to her as well as the nine percent (9%) rate of interest on money due when there is a breach of a contract with no agreed upon contractual rate 44 Lastly Rogers states that she does not contend that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases are controlling but rather, Rogers states she cites to them for illustrative purposes 4‘ II LEGAL STANDARD A Summary Judgment 1117 Summary Judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure which states A party may move for summary judgment identifying each claim or defense or the part of each claim or defense on which summary judgment is sought The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion 46 1118 Or as the Virgin Islands Supreme Court stated in Antilles School Inc v Lembach,47 summary judgment is appropriate when after considering all of the evidence accepting the nonmoving party 5 evidence as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party the court concludes that a reasonable jury could only enterjudgment in favor of the moving party ’ 48 1119 Summary judgment is a drastic remedy ’ and only proper where the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file show that there is no genuine issue as to material 4 Pl 5 Reply 3 4 Pl 5 Reply 3 4 44 PI 5 Reply 4 45 Pl 5 Reply 4 5 46VI CIV P 56(a) 47 64 V I 400 (V I 2016) 48 Id at 409 Rogers v GERS e! a] Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion Page 7 0f 11 fact[ ] ’49 The nonmoving party must show in its response to a motion for summary judgment that there are “specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial ’ 30 In addition, ‘[t]he non moving party may not rest upon mere allegations but must present actual eVidence showing a genuine issue for trial Such evidence may be direct or circumstantial but the mere possibility that something occurred in a particular way is not enough[ ] ’5‘ For a nonmoving party to show some genuine issue of material fact for trial the nonmoving party may not rest on its allegations alone but must present actual evidence amounting to more than a scintilla,’ in support of its position 32 Further [i]f the non movant offers evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative summary judgment may be granted " Finally the ‘ Court may not itself weigh the evidence and determine the truth; rather we decide only whether there is a genuine issue for trial such that a reasonable jury could return a Verdict for the non moving party 34 B Government Employees’ Retirement System, Refunds, Interest fil20 On June 24 1959 the Virgin Islands Legislature established a retirement and benefit system for officials and employees of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands and for their dependents and beneficiaries for the payment of retirement annuities disability annuities and other benefits to said officials and employees and to their dependents and beneficiaries[ ]’ 3‘ “The responsibility for the proper operation of the System and for making effectiVe the provisions of this chapter is vested in the Board of Trustees” which is composed of seven (7) members ‘6 Title 3 § 713(a) of the Virgin Islands Code establishes how a government employee may receive a refund from GERS and it reads in its entirety Upon withdrawal from service any member who does not have ten years of credited service and is not then eligible for a service retirement annuity shall be entitled to receive a refund of the accumulated contributions plus regular interest including contributions made by the member to any superseded retirement System Any member withdrawing from service who does not receive a refund and later returns to service shall receive credit for the amount ofcredited service in force at the time of his withdrawal from service Any member receiving a refund shall thereby waive and relinquish all accrued rights in the System including all accrued credited service The System may in its discretion withhold payment of a refund for a period not to exceed one year after receipt 49 Anthony v FtrstBank IIrgm Islands 58 V I 224 228 (V I 2013) (quoting Williams v United Com 50 V I 191 194 (v1 2008)) 50 Ihllzams 1 Lmted Corp 50 V I 191 194 (V I 2008) (quoting FED R CW P 56(6)) 1 Id at 229 (quoting Williams 50 V I at 194 95) 57 Anderson v American Fed n of Teachers 67 VI 777 789 (V I 2017) (quoting Pere v R1! Carlton (I ugm Islands) Inc 59 VI 522 527 28 (VI 2012)) 3 Pemberton Sales & Sew v Banco Popular de P R 877 F Supp 961 965 (D V I 1994) 4 WIllzams 50 V I at 195 (citing Anderson v Lzbert) Lobb) Inc 477 U S 242 255 (1986)) i 3 V I C 701(a) 6 .3 v I C 715(a) Rogers v GERS et a] Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion of an application from a member If no specific request to the contrary is made by a member within 30 days from the date of his separation from the service the System may, in its discretion refund the accumulated contributions of any member who has less than 3 years of credited service notwithstanding that such member may not have applied for a refund ‘7 1121 Regular interest” is defined in 3 V I C § 702(k) as interest at such rate as shall be determined by the Board from the experience ofthe system which shall be not less than two percent nor more than four percent per annum "8 In the case of In the Maria ofGallzvan i G01 tEmples Retirement S'ys ‘9 the Board refunded Magistrate Judge Gallivan for GERS overcharges over the period from January 2015 through the pay period ending May 27 2017 and for interest on the overcharges[ ]” 60 Like in the instant case, Judge Gallivan had argued that she was entitled to 9% interest under 11 V I C § 951, while GERS in that case argued it did not have to pay pre judgment interest because 5 V I C § 426(b) prevents the Government of the Virgin Islands from having to pay pre judgment interest 61 1122 The Board made a similar argument In the Matter 0/ Calla an to the one the Board makes here arguing that there is no provision that pfOVidCS for the rate of interest on refunds for overpayment but § 762(a) is close enough and the interest to be proxided should be the same as outlined there 62 However In the Matte; of Gallivan the Court ruled that the Board erred in determining that the refund rate described in 3 V I C § 762(a) applies to a refund for a member s overpayments in contributions to GERS due to GERS overcharges 63 The Court ruled that Judge Gallivan was instead entitled to receive a refund of her overpayments and accrued interest on a restitution theory measured by defendant 3 unjust gain, not by the plaintiff s loss ’64 The Court ruled that [o]n a theory of restitution Judge Gallivan is entitled to a refund for contribution overpayments and GERS interest gains but not losses—on those overpayments 63 III ANALYSIS 1123 The parties do not dispute that Rogers paid $16 139 00 to GERS for prior non credited service at the District Court and that this payment was based off an erroneous interpretation of the Virgin Islands Code While GERS disputes in its Opposition that this amount solely reflects Rogers work at the District Court both parties agree that Rogers paid this amount, requested it be ‘73 VIC 713(a) 8 3 v 1 C 702(k) 9 2019 V I Super 62 6° Id am} 52 6‘ [d at 11 53 The Court did not address the issue of pre judgment interest be) 0nd stating this argument from GERS so the Court will address it below as applied to this case 6 Id at W 54 57 6 1d at 11 58 64 [d at 11 59 65 1d at 11 62 Rogers v GERS et (11 Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion returned and GERS attempted to return it only to have Rogers return the money as the issue of the correct interest rate was not resolved 1R4 As there are no material facts in dispute this case is ripe for summary judgment The Court will grant Rogers Motion For Summary Judgment insofar as she requests GERS be made to disgorge funds which rightfully belong to her The Court will not assess a 9% interest rate or prejudgment interest but, rather it will follow the holding from In the Matter ofGalevan and order the funds be returned to Rogers along with any monies that were gained by GERS from a positive investment rate of return A Rogers is not entitled to 9% interest or prejudgment interest on her erroneous non credited service payment $125 The Court is not persuaded that 11 V l C § 951 is applicable to the instant case While it is accurate that the Legislature only included in the statute an interest rate to be applied to refunds provided b) GERS after retirement it is also true that the Legislature omitted from the statute any process for GERS to provide any refund before retirement Thus if the Legislature was indicating through omission its desire to only apply the regular interest rate to retirement refunds and not any others it can equally be said the Legislature was indicating through omission its desire for GERS to not provide an} refunds until retirement Further it would seem counter to the Legislature s desire to limit the interest rate assessed on GERS payments to between 2% and 4% if all an employee had to do to receive a much higher 9% interest rate is request a refund of their payments any time before or right up to retirement 1126 Further, there has been no breach or violation of GERS’ contractual commitment to Rogers GERS duties and obligations to Rogers, and the prerequisites Rogers must meet to qualify for them, are plainly laid out in 3 V l C § 713(a), paramount among them is the requirement that the employee has withdrawn from service Rogers has not yet withdrawn from service Nor is the Court persuaded that the Authorization Of Payroll Deduction For Non Credited Service Time form created a new, separate contract between GERS and Rogers The form merely directs GERS how to do something it is already required to do under its preexisting agreement with Rogers deposit fimds from her paycheck into a retirement fund Further the deductions are explicitly for ‘non credited service time’ and as GERS makes clear federal employment does not count as service time that can be credited Even if the Authorization form established a new contract as both parties were mistaken as to a key material fact of the contract namely that District Court employment counts as ‘service time there is a mutual mistake which would render the supposed agreement voidable {[27 Lastly Title 5 § 426(b) of the Virgin Islands Code states that [n]otwithstanding the provisions of title 1 1 section 951(a)(1) and title 33 section 3408(a) of this code or any other law pre judgment interest shall not be charged against the Government of the Virgin Islands on any Rogers v GERS et a! Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion judgment or decree for the payment of money by the Government 66 GERS is an ‘independent and separate agency of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands 67 As stated above § 951(a)(1) is not applicable in this situation, and since Rogers points to no other law or provision granting an exception to § 426(b) pre judgment interest may not be assessed against GERS in this case B Rogers is entitled to a refund of the $16,139 00, as well as any interest actually accrued on those contributions $128 Rogers, however, is entitled to the return of the $16 139 00 paid to GERS as well as any interest that actually accrued under a theory of restitution No party disputes that Rogers is owed the money and indeed there have been prior attempts to return this money to Rogers before litigation commenced What is disputed is how much interest is owed to Rogers While GERS argues Rogers is not entitled to an unjust enrichment claim because there is a contract, the contract did not anticipate a GERS employee erroneously telling a contributor that she may receive credited service time for employment with the federal goyernment GERS has no claim to this money under the agreement between Rogers and GERS as GERS may only consider service time with the territorial, and not federal government Further GERS has retained these funds for over a decade during which inflation has lessened its principal value GERS has had an opportunity to make a profit from these funds and GERS has denied Rogers an opportunity to a profit from these funds Thus, equity demands that Rogers not simply receive the principal amount since it has been held by GERS for so long 1129 Moreover given the Court 5 ruling and analysis In the matte) 0f Gallivan, which dealt largely with an analogous situation under a theory of restitution the interest owed to Rogers is whatever the actual interest was that accrued upon the overpaid funds during the period in which GERS retained Rogers’ funds Thus if investments made by GERS with $10,000 had resulted in a gain of $500 Rogers would be entitled to the full $10 500 However, as stated [n the matter of Gallzvan this amount is only to include interest gains not losses 68 Therefore GERS will be ordered to provide the Court with a current and up to date accounting of how much interest actually accrued on the $16 139 00 The period of calculation shall be between July 10 2007, When GERS fully received this amount and the date of entry of judgment consistent with this Memorandum Opinion 69 IV CONCLUSION 1130 Plaintiff Sharline L Rogers filed suit on July 27 2017 against GERS and its Board of (’6 5 V l C §426(b) (’7 3 V l C 715(a) (’8 2019 VI Super 62 1] 63 ( On a theory of restitution Gallivan is entitled to a refund for contribution overpayments and GERS interest gains but not losseswon those overpayments ) 69 Pl 5 Mem 2 Rogers v GERS et a] Case No ST 2017 CV 00337 Memorandum Opinion Page 11 0f 11 Trustees seeking a refund on payments erroneously made into the GERS retirement trust fund on the belief that she would be credited service time for her employment with the federal government at the District Court of the Virgin Islands 1131 Neither party disputes that Rogers made these payments or that they were erroneous Since Rogers has not yet retired no refund on payments are statutorily due to her under 3 V I C § 713(a) However, as the Court reasoned In the matter of Gallnan Rogers is entitled to a reimbursement of her erroneous payments under a theory of restitution, along with any interest that actually accrued during the time GERS retained the funds Therefore the Court will order (1) the Defendants to return the $16 139 00 paid by Rogers to GERS for her time at the District Court of the Virgin Islands (2) the Defendants to provide an accounting of the amount of interest that accrued during the period Defendants retained and had the use of Robers funds and (3) that the Defendants pay to Rogers the amount of interest that actually accrued on the erroneously collected $16 139 00 A judgment consistent with this Memorandum Opinion follows DATED MayZZ 2022 giggggggw 22mm DENISE M F NCOIS Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands ATTEST TA RA CHA ES Cler o e Cmm B a W DON A D DONG 1% Com Llerk buperxisor / (19%}