Opinion ID: 3012581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Significance of the Virgin Islands Quiet Title

Text: Statute Preliminarily we must dispose of the question whether the fact that the Virgin Islands quiet title statute, 28 V.I.C. S 372, which, when it was enacted in 1921, specifically vested jurisdiction in the district court, exempts quiet title actions from 4 V.I.C. S 76(a)'s vesting oforiginal jurisdiction in all civil actions in the Territorial Courts. If so, the District Court of the Virgin Islands would still have jurisdiction over quiet title actions brought under 28 V.I.C. S 372 pursuant to 48 U.S.C. S 1612(b). While Club Comanche did not specifically cite S 372 as the basis for its quiet title claim in this case, it acknowledges that its claim is a quiet title claim. The parties do not cite and we cannot find any statute other than 28 V.I.C. S 372 that could support Comanche's quiet title action. Therefore, we assume that Comanche has brought its claim pursuant to that statute. The Virgin Islands Code section governing quiet title actions, titled Action to determine boundaries, provides as follows: _________________________________________________________________ nineteenth centuries. We held in Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance that the federal common law applied to a dispute over littoral property in the Virgin Islands where the purported filling and/or extension of the property into the sea through natural accretion took place prior to 1974, when the GVI obtained title over submerged lands, (although we did not decide whether the federal common law applies to filling or accretion that took place prior to 1917, when the United States obtained from Denmark title to the submerged lands surrounding St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John). 757 F.2d at 538 n.6. Under federal common law, if a littoral landowner's property is extended through the natural process of accretion, then the reclaimed coastal land (also known as fastlands) accrue to the owner of the adjoining uplands, because this owner should not be deprived of his access to the sea, which is a major factor in the value of his property, by slow and imperceptible acts of nature. Id. at 538. However, [t]itle to fastlands . . . resulting from unauthorized artificial fill remains with the owner of the submerged lands. Id. at 539. We do not reach the question whether the federal common law of submerged lands governs this dispute because even assuming that it does, the plaintiff did not need to reference the federal common law in its quiet title complaint, and thus it cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case. See infra Section II.C. 11 In any case where any dispute or controversy exists, or may hereafter arise, between two or more owners of adjacent or contiguous lands in the Virgin Islands, concerning the boundary lines thereof, or the location of the lines dividing such lands, either party or any party to such dispute or controversy may bring and maintain an action of an equitable nature in the district court for the purpose of having such controversy or dispute determined . . . . 28 V.I.C. S 372 (1997) (emphasis added). Thus, the question arises whether S 76(a)'s general grant of original jurisdiction to the Territorial Courts in all civil actions has impliedly repealed the part of 28 V.I.C. S 372 that earlier expressly stated that quiet title actions should be broughtin the district court. On one hand, the language ofS 76(a) is broad and does not specify any exceptions. It unambiguously states that the Territorial Court shall have original jurisdiction in all civil actions regardless of the amount in controversy. S 76(a). And we have held that S 76(a) has divested the District Court of the Virgin Islands of jurisdiction over all local civil actions. Brow, 994 F.2d at 1034. On the other hand, to interpret S 76(a) to cover the quiet title action established in S 372 would go against the canon of statutory construction that [i]mplied repeals are not favored, and if effect can reasonably be given to both statutes the presumption is that the earlier is intended to remain in force. United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 88 (1971) (quoting United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 164 (1933)) (internal quotation marks omitted). While we recognize that these two statutes are in some tension, we are satisfied that S 76(a)'s language vesting original jurisdiction in the Territorial Courts inall civil actions includes quiet title actions, notwithstanding the language from S 372 about bringing a quiet title action in the district court.8 ReadingS 76(a) to divest the District _________________________________________________________________ 8. In Newfound Mgmt. Corp. v. Lewis, 131 F.3d 108 (3d Cir. 1997), we noted that jurisdiction over quiet title cases resides in the territorial court for cases filed after the effective date of S 76(a). We did not discuss the issue, however, because the case before us had been filed before the effective date of S 76(a) and thus the District Court of the Virgin Islands had jurisdiction notwithstanding the later vesting of such actions in the Territorial Courts. Id. at 119 n.9. We take this opportunity to address more fully why S 76(a) vests original jurisdiction over quiet title actions brought pursuant to 28 V.I.C. S 372 in the Territorial Courts. 12 Court of the Virgin Islands of jurisdiction overS 372 quiet title actions does not actually impliedly repeal any operative part of S 372. The only part that it arguably repeals is S 372's statement that either party or any party to such dispute or controversy may bring and maintain an action of an equitable nature in the district court . . . . 28 V.I.C. S 372 (emphasis added). The rest of the statute -- the part that creates the cause of action -- remains. The part that purports to vest jurisdiction in the district court, however, was both inoperative (because only Congress may vest jurisdiction in the District Court of the Virgin Islands) and unnecessary (because Congress had already vested broad jurisdiction in the District Court of the Virgin Islands) in the first place. See Estate Thomas Mall, Inc. , 923 F.2d at 261.9