Court Opinion

ID: 9931346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:19:41.969487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:14.434686
License: Public Domain

For Publication

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

 SBRMCOA LLC and SAPPHIRE BEACH                             S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
 RESORT AND MARINA CONDOMINIUM                              Re SUPer Ct CiV N0 570 20l5 (STT)
 OWNERS ASSOCIATION
      Appellants/Plaintiffs                             1
                                                        I
 v

 BEACHSIDE ASSOCIATES LLC
     Agpellee/Defendant

                     On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
                                Division of St Thomas St John
                        Superior Court Judge Hon Renee Gumbs Carty

                                   Considered March 9, 2021
                                     Filed February 8 2024

                                       Cite as 2024 VI 10

BEFORE        RHYS S HODGE Chief Justice, MARIA M CABRET, Associate Justice, and
              IVE ARLINGTON SWAN Associate Justice

APPEARANCES

Maria T Hodge, Esq
Hodge & Hodge
St Thomas, U S V I
      Attorneyfor Appellants

Neil D Goldman, Esq
Goldman & Van Beck P C
Alexandria, VA

Gregory H Hodges, Esq
Dudley Newman Feuerzeig LLP
St Thomas, U S V I
      AttorneysﬁJr Appellee

                               OPINION OF THE COURT

CABRET, Associate Justice
SERMCOA LL( v BeachSIde Assoc LLC           2024 V] 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 2 of l I

ﬁll     SBRMCOA, LLC, and Sapphire Beach Resort and Marina Condominium Association

(collectively the “COA”) appeal from the Superior Court 5 December 23, 2019 judgment, which

continued an arbitration award concerning wastewater services provided by the Appellee

Beachside Associates, LLC We afﬁrm

                                       I BACKGROUND

‘2      This matter involves a long and contentious dispute regarding the control of and charges

for wastewater services at the Sapphire Beach Resort and Marina Bayside Resorts, Inc sponsored

the creation of the Sapphire Beach Resort and Marina Condominium, and entered into an

agreement with the COA as the representative of all the Condominium’s apartment owners, to

provide sewage services in exchange for a reasonable charge In 2005, Bayside Resorts defaulted

on a promissory note and mortgage it owed to Beachside Associates, and abandoned its

reSponsibilities to the COA, including its agreement to provide sewage services The COA initially

provided wastewater treatment on its own, but Beachside Associates began to provide this service

after it successfully foreclosed on Bayside Resorts’ mortgage and obtained ownership of the

property, including the wastewater treatment plant However, the COA and Beachside Associates

could not agree on the cost of this service, resulting in the COA withholding payments to

Beachside Associates

113     On January 22, 2009, Beachside Associates and the COA executed an arbitration

agreement, in which the Association agreed to make certain interim payments to Beachside

Associates for the provision of sewage services, and that “the claims of Beachside against the COA

for recovery of charges for treating the wastewater, and the challenges by the COA to the propriety

of such charges, shall be determined by binding arbitration ” (J A 188 89 ) Beachside Associates

made such a claim on February 15 2013 alleging that the COA had failed to pay $1 095 993 85
SERMCOA LLC v Beachside Assoc LLC              2024 VI 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 3 of ll

in charges accrued since it began providing wastewater services On February 14, 2013, the COA

and Beachside Associates executed a stipulation in which they reﬁned several of the procedures

set forth in the arbitration clause, including agreeing that the matter had been referred to arbitration

“pursuant to an ‘all disputes’ arbitration clause” and that “[t]hese arbitration proceedings shall be

governed by the rules set forth in Exhibit 4 to this Stipulation         the law of the United States

Virgin Islands and 9 U S C A § 1 et seq           (J A 470) Among the rules in Exhibit 4 to the

stipulation was a provision providing that “[p]roceedings to enforce, conﬁrm, modify or vacate an

Award will be controlled by and conducted in conformity with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9

U S C Sec 1 et seq or applicable state law ” (J A 495 )

114     Ultimately, the arbitrator entered a ﬁnal award on October 10, 2013, which fully

incorporated an earlier partial ﬁnal award entered on June 19, 2013 Among many other things,

the arbitrator awarded Beachside Associates the sum of $1,042,516 00 plus unspeciﬁed interest

for wastewater services it provided to the COA through September 23, 2013, and directed

Beachside Associates to “[s]et up a payment plan with the COA to pay off the amount owed

over a period of ﬁve years with interest and ﬂow charges being earned from and after September

23 2013      (J A 156)

115     Thereafter, both the COA and Beachside Associates ﬁled motions with the Superior Court

to vacate the award in part and afﬁrm it in part The Superior Court issued a judgment on June 8,

2015, in which it conﬁrmed the award of $1,042,516 00 plus $15,851 62 in interest,1 vacated

numerous other provisions of the ﬁnal award that are not relevant to this appeal, and also directed

' Although the ﬁnal award did not include a speciﬁc monetary award for interest, the Superior
Court determined the amount of interest owed by using the prejudgment interest rate the arbitrator
established in the earlier partial ﬁnal award (J A 270)
SBRMCOA LLC v Beachside Assoc LLC           2024 V1 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 4 of I]

that the matter be “REMANDED to the arbitrator to determine the precise terms of the ﬁve year

payment plan of the sums awarded in section 5 of the Final Award ” (J A 271 ) The COA and

Beachside Associates both appealed the June 8, 2015 judgment to this Court, but this Court

dismissed both appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction because it did not constitute a ﬁnal

judgment within the meaning of title 4, section 32(a) of the Virgin Islands Code and no other basis

for appellate jurisdiction existed SBRMCOA LLC v Beachszde Assocmtes LLC, S Ct Civ No

2015 0053 2015 WL 9581398 at *3 4 (VI Dec 28 2015) (unpublished)

116     The arbitrator held hearings on March 2, 2016, and July 26, 2016, which culminated in

issuance of a new award on August 22, 2016 In that award, the arbitrator established the precise

terms of a ﬁve year payment plan for both the earlier award and the new award However, the

arbitrator also considered a new claim by Beachside Associates premised on the COA’s failure to

pay for services provided between September 23 2013, and April 26, 2016, and awarded it an

additional $357 417 03 plus interest on that claim

‘7      Beachside Associates ﬁled a motion to conﬁrm the August 22, 2016 award with the

Superior Court on March 22 2017 On April 17 2017 the COA submitted a ﬁling which requested

conﬁrmation of the portion of the August 22 2016 award establishing the payment plan but

requested that the award of $357 413 03 be vacated because it purportedly exceeded the scope of

the Superior Court’s remand order Beachside Associates ﬁled a reply on May 12, 2017, in which

it alleged that the COA s vacatur request had been untimely because section 12 of the Federal

Arbitration Act (the “FAA ’), 9 U S C § 12 requires that a motion to vacate or modify an

arbitration award be ﬁled within three months of its issuance

118     The Superior Court, in a December 23, 2019 judgment conﬁrmed the August 22, 2016

award in its entirety Speciﬁcally the Superior Court agreed with Beachside Associates that the
SERMCOA LLC v BeachSIde Assoc LL(           2024 VI 10
S Ct Civ No 2020       0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 5 of l l

COA had waived its right to challenge any aspect of the August 22, 2016 award since it failed to

comply with the limitations period found in section 12 of the FAA The COA timely ﬁled a notice

of appeal with this Court on January 17 2012 See VI R APP P 5(a)(l)

                                        II DISCI SSION

                              A Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

T9      This Court has jurisdiction over “all appeals arising from ﬁnal judgments, ﬁnal decrees or

ﬁnal orders of the Superior Court, or as otherwise provided by law ” V I CODE ANN tit 4, § 32(a)

“[T]he denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award constitutes a ﬁnal judgment for purposes

of section 32(a) ’ Tremcorp Holdings Inc v Harris, 65 V I 364 367 (V I 2016)

1110    “When reviewing the Superior Court's decision to conﬁrm an arbitration award, we

exercise plenary review over the Superior Court's application of the law and review any ﬁndings

of fact for clear error ” Gov? of V] v St Thomas St John Educ Admmzsrrators'Ass’n Local 101

o b o Forde( Forde ) 67 V I 623 628 (V I 2017)

                               B Post Remand Arbitration Award

1111    The COA, as its ﬁrst issue on appeal renews its argument that the arbitrator acted

improperly by awarding Beachside Associates an additional $357,413 03 plus interest in the

August 22, 2016 award on its new claim for failure to pay for services provided between September

23 2013 and Apri126 2013 Surprisingly the COA does not directly address the Superior Court s

stated reason for declining to vacate that award that the COA waived its objection to the award

because it did not request vacatur or modiﬁcation within the three month limitations period in

section 12 of the FAA

1112    This Court has held that only the substantive provisions ofthe FAA preempt Virgin Islands

law, and even then, only in cases where the FAA applies due to a nexus with interstate commerce
SBRM( 0A LLC v BeachSJde Assoc LLC            2024 VI 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 6 of l I

See Allen v HOVENSA L L C 59 V I 430 442 n 2 (V I 2013) (citing World Fresh Market v

PD CM Assocs S Ct Civ No 2011 0051 2011 WL 3851739 at *2 (VI Aug 25 2011)

(unpublished)) Nevertheless, all provisions of the FAA       both substantive and procedural   will

apply to any case in which the parties have unequivocally contracted for the FAA to govern the

proceeding See Tremcorp Holdings Inc v Harris 67 V I 601 605 (V I 2017) (applying the

three month limitation period found in section 12 of the FAA when the parties agreed to arbitration

“pursuant to the [FAA]’)

{[13      Here, the COA and Beachside Associates agreed in their February 14, 2013 stipulation that

“[t]hese arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the rules set forth in Exhibit 4 to thlS

Stipulation       the law of the United States Virgin Islands and 9 U S C A § 1 et seq (J A 470 )

Moreover, the agreed upon rules include a rule speciﬁcally providing that “[p]roceedings to

enforce, conﬁrm, modify or vacate an Award will be controlled by and conducted in conformity

with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U S C Sec 1 et seq or applicable state law ” (J A 495 ) As

such, the three month limitations period codiﬁed in section 12 ofthe FAA applied to this particular

arbitration proceeding even if it were not generally applicable to all arbitrations in the Virgin

Islands

1|l4      Perhaps recognizing that its stipulated agreement and this Court’s case law renders the

three month limitations period applicable, the COA ﬂames its arguments in terms of the arbitrator

ﬂouting the authority of the Superior Court, emphasizing that the June 8, 2015 judgment contained

“a simple and limited remand directive” which “w[as] explicit and ﬁxed by the terms ofthe remand

judgment,” and that “[t]he arbitrator, well informed of the limits of his authority on remand

imposed by the court, nevertheless announced his intention not to comply with the court’s

judgment” and engaged in “deﬁance” of the judgment (Appellant’s Br 13 ) But the COA fails
SBRMCOA LLCv Beachnde Assoc LLC                2024 V1 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 7 of 11

to recognize that section 12 of the FAA does not contain an exception to the three month

limitations period for motions to vacate or modify premised on arbitrators exceeding their

authority      In fact, courts have consistently held that the three month limitations period applies

even when it is alleged that the arbitrator has exceeded his authority or jurisdiction See e g In! 1

Union of Operating Engmeers Local No 841 v Murphy Co 82 F 3d 185 189 (7th Cir 1996)

(holding that to the extent the arbitrator acted without authority, the party “should have moved the

district court within 90 days to vacate the award”), Carpenters 46 Northern Caltfornza Counties

Conference 3d v Meddles 535 F Supp 775 777 (N D Cal 1981) ( The federal statute of

limitations under 9 U S C {5 12 has been held applicable even where the party seeking to vacate

the arbitration asserts     that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to enter the award ”), DeLorto v

Unzted Parcel Serwce Inc 401 F Supp 408 409 (D Mass 1975) (same) Consequently, the

Superior Court correctly held that the COA waived its objection to the August 22, 2016 award due

to its failure to seek vacatur or modiﬁcation ofthat award within the three month limitations period

established in section 12 of the FAA

                                  D Manifest Disregard of the Law

1115    The COA further contends that the Superior Court erred when it issued its June 8, 2015

judgment conﬁrming the portions of the June 19, 2013 and October 13, 2013 awards that awarded

$1,042,516 00 plus interest to Beachside Associates According to the GOA, the arbitrator

manifestly disregarded the law, in that he purportedly failed to apply the common law doctrines of
SBRMCOA LLC v Beachsxde Assoc LLC            2024 VI 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 8 of l I

ofﬁcious intermeddler and unclean hands 2

1|16    As a threshold matter, it is highly unclear whether the Superior Court or this Court even

possesses the authority to review an arbitrator’s decision for a manifest disregard of the law

Although this Court in Gov tofthe V] v St Thomas St John Educational Admmlstrators ASS n,

67 VI 623 (VI 2017), recognized manifest disregard of the law as a basis for vacating an

arbitration award, it did so in the limited context of establishing a common law rule to govern

situations not governed by the FAA Id at 633 But in this case the parties expressly and

unambiguously agreed for the FAA to govern the underlying arbitration proceedings and agreed

to a rule providing that “[p]roceedings to enforce, conﬁrm, modify or vacate an [a]ward will be

controlled by and conducted in conformity with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U S C Sec 1 et

seq or applicable state law ” (J A 470, 495 ) Therefore, it is not the Virgin Islands common law

of arbitration, but rather the FAA, that governs this issue

1117    Although the FAA sets forth several bases for vacating an arbitration award, manifest

disregard of the law is not one of them Nevertheless, prior to 2008, many federal appellate courts

recognized manifest disregard as a nonstatutory basis for vacatur See CItzgroup Global Markets

Inc v Bacon 562 F 3d 349 353 & n 3 (5th Cir 2009) (collecting cases) However in 2008 the

United States Supreme Court strongly questioned whether manifest disregard represents an

independent nonstatutory ground for vacating an arbitration award See Hall Street Assocmtes

LLC v Mattel Inc       552 U S 576, 585 (2008) As a result several federal courts of appeal

2 Under the ofﬁeious intermeddler doctrine, a person who voluntarily confers a beneﬁt upon
another is generally precluded from obtaining restitution See Tipper v Great Lakes Chem Co ,
281 So 2d 10, 13 (Fla 1973) “The unclean hands doctrine is an equitable tenet that demands one
who seeks equitable relief to be free from wrongdoing in the matter before the court” so as “to
prevent a party from reaping beneﬁts from his misconduct ” Fairway Developers Inc v Marcum,
832 N E 2d 581 584 85 (Ind Ct App 2005)
SBRMCOA LLC v Beachsrde Assoc LLC              2024 VI 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 9 of l]

subsequently overruled their prior precedents adopting the manifest disregard standard as an

independent nonstatutory ground for vacatur, based on the Hall Street decision’s implication that

the FAA only permits a court to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the grounds expressly set

forth in the statute, see e g Cmgroup, 562 F 3d at 358, Ramos-Santlaga v United Parcel Serv ,

524 F 3d 120, 124 n 3 (lst Cir 2008), while other courts maintained the manifest disregard

standard but recast it to only include the factors set forth in section 10 of the FAA, see e g Stall

Nzelsen SA v AnzmalFeeds Int! Corp 548 F 3d 85 93 95 (2d Cir 2008)‘ Comedy Club Inc v

Improv West Assocs 553 F 3d 1277 1290 (9th Cir 2009)

1118      Nevertheless, even if the manifest disregard standard remains a valid basis for vacating an

arbitration award despite the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street, that standard

has not been met with respect to either of the COA’s claims Prior to Hall Street, it was well

established that to obtain vacatur of an arbitration award based on a manifest disregard for the law,

the party seeking vacatur was required to prove “(1) the applicable legal principle is clearly deﬁned

and not subject to reasonable debate, and (2) the arbitrator[] refused to heed that legal principle ”

Long John Sliver s Rests Inc v Cole 514 F 3d 345 (4th Cir 2008) (quoting Merrzll Lynch

Plerce Fenner & Smith Inc v Jams 70 F 3d 418 421 (6th Cir 1995))

$19       Here the doctrines of unclean hands and ofﬁcious intermeddler are not clearly deﬁned in

the Virgin Islands and are certainly subject to reasonable debate In its appellate brief, the COA

cites to no statute or decision of this Court adopting either doctrine as the law of the Virgin

Islands     nor could it cite to any such case law, because it does not exist Rather, the COA asserts

that “[t]he clear law in the Virgin Islands” with respect to both doctrines “is set out in the

Restatement of Restitution ” (Appellant’s Br 23 24) But it is now well established that

“mechanistic and uncritical reliance on the Restatements” as stating the law of the Virgin Islands
SBRMCOA LLC v Beachnde Assoc LLC             2024 VI 10
S Ct Civ No 2020 0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 10 of 11

is not appropriate, for “the Restatements no longer hold an automatic preferred status in Virgin

Islands law, but as in all other jurisdictions, merely represent persuasive authority, just like law

review commentaries and decisions rendered by courts outside of the Virgin Islands ” Gov t ofthe

V! v Connor, 60 V I 597 602 (VI 2014) It is axiomatic that an arbitrator could not have

manifestly disregarded the law of the Virgin Islands in failing to apply the doctrines of unclean

hands and ofﬁcious intermeddler when there is no valid statute or binding precedent of this Court

adopting those common law rules See Collins v D R Horton Inc , 505 F 3d 874, 884 (9th Cir

2007) (holding that an arbitrator cannot manifestly disregard the law when no binding precedent

exists on that point of law) Therefore, even if manifest disregard for the law remains a basis for

vacating an arbitration award under the FAA, the Superior Court committed no error by continuing

the June 19 2013 and October 13 2013 awards

                                       11] CONCLUSION

1120    The COA waived its right to challenge the correctness of the August 22, 2016 award

because it failed to seek vacatur or modiﬁcation within the three month limitations period set forth

in section 12 of the FAA And even if a court can review an arbitration award under the FAA for

manifest disregard of the law, the Superior Court correctly continued the June 19, 2013, and

October 13, 2013 awards since it is not clear, but rather reasonably debatable, whether the common

law doctrines of unclean hands and ofﬁcious intermeddler are recognized in the Virgin Islands

Accordingly, we afﬁnn the June 8, 2015 and December 23, 2019 judgments of the Superior Court

Dated this 8“I day of February, 2024

                                                                     BY THE COURT

                                                     C            fit
                                                                  1 ARIA M CABRET
                                                                     Assoeiateym
                                                                      c
SERMCOA LLC v Beachs1de Assoc LLC   2024 VI 10
S Ct Civ No 2020       0004
Opinion of the Court
Page 11 of II

ATTEST

VERONICA J HANDY ESQ
Clerk of the Court

By Isl Reisha Corneiro
     Deputy Clerk

Dated February 8, 2024