Court Opinion

ID: 9966354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 19:15:43.243659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:53.719236
License: Public Domain

For Publication

                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

 EUPHITA O HACKETT                                                  ) S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
        Appellant/Defendant                                         )   Re Super Ct Civ No 538 2002 (STX)
                                                                    )
 V                                                                  )
                                                                    )
 HARRIETT L SASSO                                                   )
        Appellee/Plaintiff                                          )
                                                                    )
                             On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
                                             Division of St Croix
                                 Superior Court Judge Hon Douglas A Brady

                                               Considered June 14, 2022
                                                  Filed May 6 2024

                                                   Cite as 2024 VI 21

BEFORE            MARIA M CABRET Associate Justice IVE ARLINGTON SWAN
                  Associate Justice, and RENEE GUMBS CARTY, Designated Justice '

APPEARANCES

Yvette Ross Edwards, Esq 2
Law Ofﬁces of Yvette D Ross Edwards
St Croix U S V I
       A ttorneyﬁn Appellam

Mark L Milligan, Esq
Law Ofﬁces of Mark Milligan
St Croix U S V I
       A Itorney for Appellee

                                        OPINION OF THE COURT

‘ ChiefJustice Rhys S Hodge has recused himself from this matter The Honorable Renee Gumbs Carty sits in his
place by designation pursuant to title 4 subsection 24(a) of the Virgin Islands Code

7 Judge Yvette Ross Edwards was elevated to the bench and conﬁrmed as a Judge in the Superior Court of the
Virgin Islands before the full senate on June 14 2023 Judge Ross Edwards was sworn in on August l4 2023
Attorney Kye Walker was substituted as counsel for the Appellant on July .>l 2023
Hackett v Sasso                                     2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 2 of 9

CABRET, Associate Justice

f1       Appellant Euphita Hackett appeals the Superior Court 5 April 8 2020 amended judgment

order entering judgment in favor of Appellee Harriett Sasso and ordering Hackett to reimburse

Sasso for the property taxes Sasso paid on a plot of land designated as Plot 5 U, Estate Upper

Love Prince Quarter, Frederiksted, St Croix ( Plot 5 U ’) For the following reasons, we afﬁrm

the judgment of the Superior Court

                                            I        BACKGROUND

$12      In 1972, Hackett purchased land known as Plot 5 T, Estate Upper Love, Prince Quarter,

Frederiksted St Croix ( Plot 5 T”) with her now deceased husband The following year Hackett

began constructing a family home on what she thought was Plot 5 T, but in reality Hackett had

mistakenly begun construction on Plot 5 U, the adjacent lot Hackett completed construction of

the home in 1980 and has resided 0n Plot 5 U since the home’s completion In 1998, Sasso was

devised Plot 5 U by an adjudication in the probate of Josephine Blackwell’s estate 3 During the

course of probate, Sasso had Plot S U surveyed, revealing Hackett’s residence on the property

Despite Sasso obtaining title to Plot 5 U in 1998, neither she nor any of her predecessors ever

questioned Hackett’s possession or occupancy of Plot 5 U for well over ﬁfteen years While Sasso

purportedly notiﬁed Hackett in late 1997 or 1998 that she was wrongfully residing on Plot 5 U

Hackett continued residing on Plot 5 U and Sasso and her predecessors continued to pay the

property taxes on Plot 5 U 4

3 Blackwell was the sole owner of Plot 5 U prior to Sasso

" While receipts of Sasso 5 property tax payments are not contained in the record we defer to the Superior Court 5
reasoning that Sasso and her predecessors paid property taxes on Plot 5 U for several years which payments have
redounded to the beneﬁt of Hackett
Hacket! v Sasso                                     2024 VI 21
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 3 of 9

113      In 2002, Sasso initiated a quiet title action in the Superior Court in order to determine

ownership of Plots 5 U and 5 T Hackett answered Sasso s complaint, raising adverse possession

as an afﬁrmative defense and later amended her answer to include a counterclaim for adverse

possession Hackett then moved for summary judgment as to her ownership of Plot 5 U by adverse

possession In 2004, the Superior Court determined that Hackett had satisﬁed all adverse

possession statutory requirements and awarded her ownership of Plot 5 U Sasso appealed the

Superior Court’s 2004 memorandum opinion and order to the Appellate Division of the District

Court of the Virgin Islands (‘Appellate Division”) 5 In 2006 the Appellate Division afﬁrmed the

Superior Court’s decision that Hackett became the owner of Plot 5 U by adverse possession but

remanded the case with the limiting instructions to ‘clarify the precise property affected and to do

equity    The Appellate Division speciﬁcally instructed that ‘the [Superior Court] should determine

whether it is fair for Sasso to take nothing given her payment of property taxes on Plot 5 T and

for Hackett to take both Plots 5 U and 5 T

114      On April 8, 2020, the Superior Court entered an amended judgment and memorandum

opinion resolving the questions presented for remand In its opinion, the Superior Court denied

awarding Sasso an equitable conveyance of Plot 5 T because [t]o 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 Nevertheless, the Superior Court found that

the interests of equity supported reimbursing Sasso for the property taxes she paid on Plot 5 U

5 ‘The Supreme Court [of the Virgin Islands] ofﬁcially assumed appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the
Superior Court on January 29 2007     thus ‘the Appellate Division’s appellate jurisdiction over Superior Court
decisions is limited to appeals ﬁled prior to January 29 2007   Hypollre v People 51 V l 97 l0l (V l 2009)
Sasso ﬁled her appeal on June 25 2004 from the Superior Court 5 June 24 2004 decision therefore the Appellate
Division was the designated appellate court for the Territory at the time of her appeal See Richards v People 74
V! 539 >4.)(V1202l)
Hacker! v 90550                                  2024 V1 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion ofthe Court
Page 4 of9

because these payments “redounded to the beneﬁt of Hackett ” The Superior Court also imposed

pre and post judgment interest on the recovery of this reimbursement Hackett timely ﬁled this

appeal on May 8 2020 6

                      ll       JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

1|5     This Court [has] jurisdiction over all appeals arising from ﬁnal judgments ﬁnal decrees

or ﬁnal orders of the Superior Court or as otherwise p1 ovided by law " V 1 CODE ANN tit 4 §

32(a) Pelle v Cerium Underwriters at Lloyds of London 66 V I 315 318 (V I 2017) A ﬁnal

order conclusively adjudicates all disputes between the parties ends the litigation on the merits

and leaves nothing to do but execute the judgment See Guardian Ins Co v nght, 75 V I 345,

349 (V I 2021) see also In re Joseph 65 V I 217 222 (V I 2016) Because the Superior Court 5

April 8 2020 amended judgment and order conclusively adjudicated all disputes between the

parties, it is a ﬁnal order within the meaning of 4 V I C § 32(a) ” Bralhwculc v Xavier 71 V I

1089 1095 (V 1 2019)

1|6      [This Court’s] standard of review in examining the Superior Court's application of law is

plenary while ﬁndings of fact are reviewed only for clear error ” Alexandel v Alexander , 65 V l

572 377 (V I 2016) (citing Santiago v V] Housing Auih 57 V l 256 263 (V l 2012)) This

Court also retains plenary power to determine whether the Superior Court stayed within the scope

of a reviewing court’s mandate See Caribbean Healthways Inc v James, 59 V l 805 810 (V I

2013) The Superior Court 5 decision to grant or deny equitable remedies is reviewed for abuse of

6 Sasso ﬁled a Notice of Appeal on May 6 2020 however this Court dismissed her appeal on April 22 2022 after
failing to timely submit her appellate brief by the April 28 2021 deadline extended by this Court 5 amended
scheduling order Sasso also failed to ﬁle a response brief to this appeal
Hacket! v 9asso                               2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 5 of 9

discretion See Sam 5 Food Dzsmbs Inc v NNA&0 LLC 73 V I 453 459 (V I 2020) see also

VI Tau Ass'n v V] Port Auth , 67 V I 643 661 (V I 2017)           An abuse of discretion involves a

ﬁnding of clearly erroneous fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to

fact   Suldv Lam Off ofKarmA Bentz P C 75 V I 272 276 77 (V I 2021)

                                        III      DISCUSSION

                                       A Scope of Remand

117     Hackett contends that the Appellate Division intended to limit the scope of remand to the

equities concerning property tax payments on Plot 5 T, and not Plot 5 U Hackett speciﬁcally

argues the Superior Court erred when it wrongfully exceeded the scope of remand, and in so

doing erroneously concluded that Sasso should be reimbursed property taxes for a plot which the

Appellate Division excluded from consideration of the equities ” We disagree

‘18     Generally   issues outside the scope of the remand are     not available for consideration ’

Raw 11m v People 59 V I 1069 1072 (V I 2013) (quoting Untied SIGIES‘l Walterman 408 F 3d

1084 1085 86 (8th Cir 2005)) Williams v People 58 V I 341 354 55 (VI 2013) (the Superior

Court 5 amended judgment was vacated for failing to follow instructions on remand), Caribbean

Healrhu ays, 59 V I at 812 (the Superior Court’s failure to follow a mandate on remand required

revelsal)

119     Here the Appellate Division instructed as follows

        [A]lthough we conclude the [Superior Court] did not err in determining that
        Hackett became the adverse owner of certain property, we must remand this
        matter with instructions to clarify the precise property affected and to do equity
        In considering the equities of the case, the trial court should determine whether it
        is fair for Sasso to take nothing given her payment of taxes on Plot 5 T, and for
        Hackett to take both Plots 5 U and 5 T
Hacker! v Sasso                              2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 6 of 9

        [W]e will remand this matter to the [Superior Court] to identify or designate the
        precise area of property affected and the equities of permitting Hackett to take
        possession of both Plots 5 U and 5 T while Sasso takes nothing

In addressing the Appellate Division’s mandate, the Superior Court explained that ‘ the Appellate

Division 5 Memorandum Opinion incorrectly states that Sasso paid property taxes on Plot 5 T’

while    [t]he record reﬂects that Sasso and her predecessors actually paid real property tax

bills   for   Plot 5 U   Despite the Appellate Division 3 statement that Sasso paid property taxes

on Plot 5 T, we conclude this statement was a single typographical error as the Appellate Division

correctly referred to Plot 5 U, or the property of the Josephine Blackwell estate, throughout its

opinion Because Sasso paid property taxes on Plot 5 U, rather than Plot 5 T, it makes little sense

that the Appellate Division intentionally referred to Sasso’s property tax payments on Plot 5 T

when in fact she never paid any property taxes for Plot 5 T

$110    Moreover, the instructions of the Appellate Division expressly refer to both Plot 5 U and

Plot 5 T The Appellate Division did not limit its mandate of equitable considerations to only one

plot Rather the mandate granted the Superior Court broad discretion to consider the equities as

they pertained to both plots and the parties in its April 8 2020, amended judgment order, the

Superior ( outt clearly stayed within the Appellate Division 3 mandate by acknowledging the

limited scope of remand and only deciding issues of equity This is supported by the fact that the

Superior (curt denied revisiting the merits 0t Hackett s adverse possession claim at Sasso 5

request because the record was remanded for limited purposes ’ (See April 8 2020, Memorandum

Opinion ' 8) Therefore, Hackett s argument which hinges upon the Appellate Division 5 singular

incorrect reference to the wrong plot, is unavailing against the backdrop of the entirety of the

record reﬂecting Sasso’s Plot 5 l property tax payments This Court finds that the Superior Court

remained within the Appellate Division 5 mandate
Hacker! \ 9asso                             2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 7 of 9

                               B Reimbursement of Property Taxes

11] 1   Next, Hackett argues that Sasso is not entitled to an equitable reimbursement for property

taxes she paid on Plot 5 U Hackett asserts that the reimbursement of Plot 5 U property taxes for

a period when Sasso and her predecessors were legally obligated to pay conferred no beneﬁt on

Hackett and penalized Hackett by creating a windfall for Sasso We disagree

1112     [T]he Superior Court of the Virgin Islands      like almost all modern American courts

exercises both equitable and legal authority ” 3R( & ( 0 v Boynes Trucking Sys 63 V I 544 553

(V I 2015) When exercising its equitable authority, the Superior Court has the power to fashion

any remedy deemed necessary and appropriate to do justice in [a] particular case ” Id (quoting

Kalloo v Estate of Small 62 V I 571 584 (V I 2015)) (emphasis added) For this reason the

Superior Court has a great deal more ﬂexibility in considering equitable remedies than it does in

considering legal remedies ” 3RC & ( o , 63 V I at 553 That being said, equitable remedies are

 inappropriate where a legal remedy is available ’° ( accmmam & Rove; Corp v Banco Populw

de P R 61 V I 247, 252 (V I 2014) This is because courts of equity were developed to provide

relief that was unavailable in courts of law ” 3R( & ( o , 63 V I at 553   [T]he division between

law and equity remains meaningful to deﬁning the remedies available in a particular action [(1

1113    In the instant case the Superior Court was instructed to ‘do equity’ as it pertained to the

plots involved here, and the parties These instructions coupled with the Superior Court 3 bioad

equitable authority, allowed the Superior Court to fashion almost any remedy it deemed

appropriate to achieve justice Here, the Superior Court determined that justice would be best

served by awarding Sasso an equitable reimbursement for the taxes she paid on Plot 5 U and we

agiee with that assessment
Hackett v Sasso                             2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 8 of 9

1114    First, the Superior Court was acting as a court of equity on remand, not a court of law As

stated above, courts of law and counts of equity are meaningfully distinct, and are governed by

different principles The primary function of the Superior Court acting in its equitable capacity is

to determine what is fair considering the circumstances Here, Sasso was the titleholder of Plot 5

U from 1998 until 2004 when the Superior Court awarded Hackett ownership of the property

through adverse possession Thus, during that time period, Hackett would have been obligated to

pay the property taxes on Plot 5 L     yet Sasso and her predecessors had already paid them

Therefore the Superior Court determined that a reimbursement of the funds expended for property

taxes would best compensate Sasso In adherence to the Appellate Division’s mandate to not

disturb Hackett s adverse possession award on remand, the Superior Court, within its broad

discretion, fashioned an equitable remedy to reimburse the property taxes paid by Sasso

ﬁll)    Nor does the Superior Court’s decision requiring Hackett to reimbulse Sasso result in a

 windfall    for Sasso Here, Hackett had been residing on Plot 5 U since 1980 and obtained

ownership of Plot 5 U by adverse possession in 2004 Yet never paid any property taxes on Plot 5

U Hackett, despite knowing that Sasso was the true devisee of Plot 5 U, continued to allow Sasso

and 1m predecessors to pay the Plot 5 U property taxes (1' e for the years 1988 1991 1992 1994,

1998 1999 and 2001) Therefore, it is entirely fair and equitable that Hackett must reimbulse

Sasso f0] property taxes Sasso paid on the land Hackett now owns

                                       IV     CONCLUSION

1116    The Superior Court remained within the scope of the Appellate Division’s mandate by

clarifying that Plot 5 U was the disputed property and determining that a reimbursement tor

p10peny taxes paid by Sasso would achieve the most equitable result Because the Superior Court
Hacker! v Sasso                               2024 VI 2]
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion ofthe Court
Page 9 of 9

weighed the interests, actions, and equities of both parties to reach a fair result it did not abuse its

disc1eti0n in awarding Sasso an equitable reimbursement for the property taxes paid We therefore

afﬁrm the Superior Court’s April 8, 2020 amended judgment order

Dated this 6th day of May, 2024

BY THE COURT
                                                           Q                a
                                       ,/               x mm         “

                                                        MA A M CAB 4 T               ‘
                                                        Ass I ciate Justi

ATTEST                                                                  C

VERONICA J HANDY ESQ
Clerk of the Court

By Isl Reisha Corneiro
Deputy Clerk

Dated May 6, 2024