Opinion ID: 214896
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of Injunctive Relief

Text: Glenn first argues that the District Court erred in issuing a judgment that was inconsistent with its written memorandum opinion and in subsequently denying Glenn’s motion to alter or amend the judgment to reflect the District Court’s opinion. 3 We agree. The District Court’s memorandum opinion recognized that Glenn sought a twopart injunction “to compel Dunlop to discharge and remove the documents Dunlop has recorded against the Property and to prohibit Dunlop from recording documents against the Property in the future,” Glenn v. Dunlop, No. 2005-145, 2009 WL 482481, at  (D.V.I. Feb. 23, 2009) (emphasis added). It held that Glenn had satisfied each of the required elements for such an injunction, id. at -9, and its reasoning, which turned on the actual harm the Trust has sustained as a result of the previously recorded documents and on the public’s interest in “discouraging individuals from recording baseless documents against property,” id. at , applies equally to existing and future recorded documents. After conducting a thorough analysis, the District Court concluded that it would both “issue an injunction to prohibit Dunlop from recording documents against the 3 Glenn filed a Motion to Modify Injunction and for Expedited Determination in this Court, seeking substantially the same relief as his merits arguments on this issue. Because we grant this relief as part of our disposition on the merits above, we will deny Glenn’s motion as moot. 5 Property,” id. at , and “issue an injunction to compel Dunlop to remove any and all documents he has recorded against the Property,” id. at . Despite the clarity of the District Court’s opinion regarding the scope of the injunction, its judgment enjoined Dunlop only “from recording any documents against the Property with the Recorder of Deeds,” id. at ; it did not mention that the documents Dunlop recorded in 2005, which remain in the Property’s chain of title, have already prevented the Trust from completing one sale of its St. John holdings and have frustrated the Trust’s attempts to find other buyers, see id. at . Glenn brought this issue to the District Court’s attention in a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the District Court summarily denied “without prejudice.” App. 3039-40. The inconsistency between the District Court’s memorandum opinion and its original judgment makes no sense, and it did not provide any explanation for its refusal to alter or amend the judgment. We will reverse the Court’s denial of Glenn’s motion to alter or amend, and will remand for it to revise the judgment to conform to its opinion by ordering Dunlop to remove any and all documents he has recorded against the Property. 4