SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
JEROME B CIPRIANI AND LAWRENCE
W CIPRIANI Civil No SX 17 CV 081
PLANT‘FFS ACTION FOR INTESTATE
v ADMINISTRATION
ROBEN CIPRIANI
DEFENDANT CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Appearances
Scott F McChain, Esq
McChain Hamm & St Jean LLP
Christiansted U S Virgin Islands
Fm Plaintiff?
K Glenda Cameron, Esq
Law Offices of K G Cameron
Christiansted U S Virgin Islands
For Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
‘1] 1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Roben Cipriani 5 (hereinafter
Defendant ) motion to alter or amend judgment dated August 5 2020 and incorporated
memorandum oflaw filed on August 17 2020 PlaintiffJeromeB Cipriani and PlaintiffLawrence
W Cipriani (hereinafter collectively Plaintiffs ) did not file a response theleto
BACKGROUND
t][ 2 On March 6 2017 Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant seeking partition by sale
of the following real property Plot No 266 consisting of 0 375 U S acre and Plot No 267
congisting 0f 0 375 U S acre more or less of Estate Peter 9 Rest Queen Quarter St Croix U S
Virgin Islands (hereinafter Property ) The complaint sought for an order directing that the
Ctpuam eta] I Clpuam
9X 17 CV 081
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page 2 01 12
Property be sold and the net pieceeds be divided equally after reimbursement of the parties for
the costs of this action as well as any other relief this Court deems appropriate (Compl p 2)
On April 6 2017 Defendant appeared pro se and filed his answer and counterclaimI In his
counterclaim Defendant stated that he (i) does not object to the sale of the property for a
reasonable price to be determined by a mutually agreed upon third party or this Court (ii) is
owed contribution from the proceeds of any sale of the Property for property taxes he has been
paying for several years (iii) is owed a set off for the cost of maintenance he has done or caused
to be done on the property over several years and (iv) objects to the award of costs or fees to
Piaintiffs for the bringing of this unnecessary complaint (Counterclaim (1111 I l 14) On April 12
2017 Plaintiffs filed their answer to Defendant s counteiciaim and agreed that Defendant should
be reimbursed from the sale proceeds fox any property taxes that he has paid on the propeity upon
submission of proof of such payments and that Defendant and the Plaintiffs should be
reimbursed from the sale proceeds for any expenses incurred by any of them for maintenance of
the property upon submission of proof of such payments (Plaintiffs Answer ‘11?! 2 3)
(II 3 On October 10 2018 Plaintiffs filed a motion for order for partition by sale whereby
Plaintiffs requested the Court to enter an order diiecting that the Property be sold and the net
proceeds by divided equally among the owners after reimbursement of the parties for expenses
for incurred property taxes property maintenance and the costs of this action as weli as any other
relief this Court deems appiopriate According to the certificate of service attached to the motion
for order for partition by sale a copy was served on Defendant via mail on October 10 2018
Defendant did not file a iesponse to Plaintiffs motion for order for partition by sale
' Defendant had erroneously referred to his counterclaim as a cross claim
Op! (am e; a] 1 Ctpr mm
8X 17 CV 081
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 41’
Page a of 1%
(II 4 On November 14 2018 the Court entered an order whereby the Court ordered Defendant
to submit proof of entitlement to contribution to the Property within thirty days from the date of
entry of the order and resewed ruling on Plaintiffs motion for order for partition by sale pending
receipt of Defendant s proof of entitlement to contribution to the Property According to the record
a copy of the November 14 2018 order was served on Defendant via mail and nothing in the recond
reflects that the mail was returned to sender the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of
St C101X
(115 On December 20 2018 Plaintiff Jerome B Cipriani filed a notice of filing proof of
entitlement to contribution to the Property in the total amount of $8 99000 for expenses he
incurred in the maintenance of the P1 operty and attached supporting documents According to the
certificate of service attached to the notice of filing proof of entitlement to contribution to the
Propetty a copy was served on Defendant via mail on December 20 2018 Defendant did not file
a response to Plaintiff Jerome B Cipriani s notice of filing proof of entitlement to contribution to
the Property
‘11 6 On May 17 2019 the Court entered an order (hereinafter May 17 2019 Order )wheteby
the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for ordet for partition by sale and ordered that the parties
must equally partition by sale the Property (May 17 2019 Older) On the same date in
accordance with the May 17 2019 Order the Court also entered a judgment (hereinafter May 17
2019 Judgment ) whereby the Court declared that all legal issues in the above captioned matter
are resolved ordered that the parties must evenly partition by sale the Property and ordered
that this matter will remain open for sixty days 90 the parties may file any additional documents
they find necessary to the final disposition of the case [and] [u]pon the expiration of the sixty days
the case will be closed (May 17 2019 Judgment) According to the record a copy of the May
C(pita!!! e! a] t C 1;); mm
9X 17 CV 08!
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page 4 01 l3
17 2019 Order and May 17 2019 Judgment were served on Defendant via mail and nothing in the
xecord reflects that the mail was returned to sender the Superior Court of the Vitgin Islands
Divigion of St Croix
({[7 On July 16 2020 Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the May 17 2019 Judgment
According to the certificate of service attached to the motion to enforce a copy was served on
Defendant via mail on July 16 2020 Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiffs motion to
enforce Plaintiffs motion to enforce stated inter alia that [a]n Offer to Purchase the property
was executed on February 19 2020 and the property is now under contract for sale however
Defendant is unwilling to execute the deed in order f0! the property to be sold that Defendant
is unwilling to execute the deed or otherwise cooperate in the sale and that Defendant s refusal
to cooperate in any way has made such a conveyance impossible and is in violation of this Court 5
Order and Judgment (Motion to Enforce pp 1 2) As such Plaintiffs moved the Court to enfonce
the May 17 2019 Judgment to allow for the property to be sold by grant and consent of the
Plaintiffs only pulsuant to Rule 70(a) of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure 7
Q! 8 On August 5 2020 the Court entered an order (hereinaftel August 5 2020 Order )
whereby the Court acknowledged that Plaintiffs filed their motion to enforce pmsuant to Rule
70(a) of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure granted Plaintiffs motion to enforce ordered
that Plaintiffs or either of them may affix the Defendant s signature to the deed of sale and any
’ Ruic~ 70(a) of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure prmides
Rule 70 Entorcing a Judgment for a Sgecitie Act
(a) Party's Failure to Act Ordering Another to Act If a judgment requires a party to convey land to deliver
a deed or other doeument or to perform any other specific. act and the party fails to comply within the time
specified the court may order the act to be done at the disobedient party 5 expense by another person
appointed by the court When done the act has the same effect as it done by the party
C(pl tam er a] l C1121mm
9X l7 CV 081
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page 5 0t 1?
other document pertaining to the sale of the subject property that requires Defendant s execution ‘
and ordered that Defendant pay Plaintiffs costs and attorney s fees for the filing of the motion to
enforce According to the lecord a copy of the August 5 2020 Order was served on Defendant via
mail and nothing in the record reflects that the mail was returned to sender the Superior Court of
the Vitgin Islands Division of St Croix
‘31 9 On August 12 2020 Defendant pro se filed an objection (hereinafter Objection )to the
Court 5 August 5 2020 Order On August 17 2020 Attorney K Glenda Cameron filed a notice
of appeaiance for Defendant and a motion to alter or amend judgment dated August 5 2020
pursuant to Rule 59(e)Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 59(8) ) 4
Defendant attached inter alia his Objection as an exhibit in suppoxt of his motion
STANDARD OF REVIEW
‘|[ 10 Motions for reconsiderations are governed Rule 6 4 of Virgin Islands Rule of Civil
Piocedure (heieinaftet Rule 6 4 ) Rule 6 4 provides that a party may file a motion asking the
court to reconsider its order or decision within 14 days after the entry of the ruling unless the time
is extended by the eou1t and [e]xtensi0ns will only be granted for good cause shown VI R
CIV P 6 4(a) Rule 6 4 further provides that [a] motion to reconsider must be based 0n
‘ The August 5 2020 order explained that Plaintiffs must sign the Defendant 5 name on the deed and it must be
followed by this language signature affixed tor Roben Cipriani by Order M the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
and attach a copy at the August 5 2020 Order to the deed as Plaintiffs proof that they have aLted lawtully by atfixing
the signature 0t Defendant (Aug 5 2020 Order p 2)
4 Rule 590,) gmems motions to alter or amend ajudgment and provides that {a] motion to alter or amend ajudgment
must be tiled no later than 28 days after the entry of the judoment V I R CW P 59(e) Howwer the August 5
2020 Order was not a final judgment but an order granting Plaintitts motion to enforce The lad that Delendant
explessly uoked Rule 59 does not in and of itself cause the motion to arise pursuant to Rule 590.) As auth the.
Court finds that Rule 590.) is not applicable in this instance NeVerlheless this is not a fatal error to Defendant s
motion Based upon the substance of Defendant a motion the Court will construe it as a motion tor reconsideration
of the August 5 2020 Order See Raclugue \ Bureau omer 70 V l 924 928 n l (2019) (citing Joseph L Buteau
of Corrections 54 V I 644 648 n 2 (V I 201 l) ( [T]he substance of a motion and not its caption shall determine
under which rule the motion is construed )
Czpnamet a] \ Ctprtam
9X 17 CV 081
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4?
Page 6 0f 13
(1) intervening change in controlling law (2) availability of new evidence (3) the need to coriect
clean error of law or (4) failure of the court to address an issue specifically raised prion to the
court 3 ru1ing and that [w]here ground (4) is relied upon, a party must specifically point out in
the motion for reconsideration where in the record of the pieceedings the particular issue was
actually raised befoxe the court V I R CIV P 6 4(b) Generally [a] motion for reconsideration
is not a second bite of the apple [Instead it serves] to focus the parties on the original pleadings
as the main event and to prevent parties fiom filing a second motion with the hindsight 0f the
[C]ourt s anaIysis covering issues that should have been raised in the first set of motions S‘mzth
1 Ian 0171c“ omemA Bentz P C 2018 VI LEXIS 13 15 (Super Ct Jan 29 2018) (citing
to In 1e Infant Sherman 49 V I 452 457 (V I 2008)) In determining a motion for reconsideration
the Court should operate under the common understanding that reconsideration is an
extraordinary remedy not to be sought reflexively or used as a substitute for appeal See In re
Infant Sherman 49 V I at 458
DISCUSSION
‘][ 1 1 In his motion Defendant moved the Court to amend the August 5 2020 Order on the basis
of manifest error because of the eironeous findings of fact and the fai1ure to accord due p10cess t0
Defendant and that the Judgment in this matter must be amended to correct a clear error of law
and to prevent manifest injustice (Motion pp 1 2) Defendant made the following assertions in
support of his argument (i) Defendant was never served with any documents related to the sale of
the property and thus has not failed to comply with this Court 5 Order of May 14 2019 which he
has never received 5 (Id at p 2) (ii) Plaintiffs through their original counsel Robert Waldman
5 Defendant referenced Exhibit 1 Defendant s Objection In his Objection Defendant stated that since the tiling 01
[Defendant 5} answer in this matter Detendant did not receive any notices regarding any turther actions take in this
matter and {Dchndantl received no actual notices of any hearing» or orders in this matter before receipt of the
C11mm" er a! t C[pl 1am
SX 17 CV 081
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page 7 0t H
had been informed since on or about March 24 2017 that Defendant Cipriani was represented with
regards to the sale of the property and they were to communicate with Defendant s counsel as to
any matters regarding the sale of the property and {S]pecifically Mr Roben Cipriani
communicated his willingness to cooperate on the sale to the property on the condition that all
thiee brothels will sign the listing and agree on the sale price 6 (Id )' (iii) Since June 8 2017
after Defendant Roben Cipriani approved the changing of the locks on the property to
accommodate the Realto: 9 pet Plaintiffs request thete has been no correspondence to him directly
or indirectly through Defendant Roben Cipriani 5 designated repiesentative regarding the sale of
the ptoperty (Id at p 3) (iv) Defendant Roben Cipriani was never ptovided an Offer to
Purchase or any other documents relating to the sale of the property (Id) (v) Plaintiffs
reptes‘entations to this court that Mr Roben Cipiiani failed to cooperate is without evidence in fact
and Defendant respectfully asks this Court to teconsider its Order and award of fees against the
Defendant (Id )' (vi) A9 to notice to Mr Cipriani of this Court 9 Ordel of May 14 20l9 and to
scheduling of hearings in this mattet Defendant Cipriani has no explanation as to why he did not
receive such notice Oi whether any such notices were sent (Id ) (vii) {Abide from their bald
assertion there has been no showing by the Plaintiffs to support their representation that
court 5 recent Urdu dated August 5 2020 postmarked August 7 2020 and receipt ot a motion from Plaintilt 5 {Sit}
counsel on or about July l9 20l9 [sic] while Dctendant was sick with pneumonia (Obj p l) Defendant explained
that [i]n May 2017 {Detendant 5] wife had a stroke and we WLnl oft island to the Cleveland clinic for treatment[
t]hen Hurricanes Irma and Maria struck the Virgin Islands and we remained olf island for an additional three months
after the hurricanes and [Defendant] returned to St Croix for a short period to tlean up our home after the hurricane
then I went back off island to return with my wife about six months later (1d ) Detendant contiuded that he has no
objection to the sale oi the property tor a reasonable print but I have received no notices 0t any offers and that [the
assertions by Detendant a [sie] counsel to this court that Defendant has refus[ed] to cooperate in any way is patently
false because Defendant has not received any information about any offer much less retused to cooperate (Id at
pp I 2)
Aceording to the record Plaintiffs did not tile any motion on or about July 19 20l9 However Plaintith filed their
motion to enforce on or about July I9 2020 to wit they filed their motion to enforce on July 17 2020
5 Defendant referenced Exhibit 2 A printout of email correspondences between Defendant s counsel Attorney K
Glenda Cameron and Plaintitts counsel Attorney Robert Waldman from March 24 2017 through June 8 2017
Ctpnam er al I Clpllam
SX I7 CV 08]
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4?
Page 8 0t 1%
Defendant Roben Cipriani has failed to cooperate 0n the sale of the property[ flor example
Defendant has continued to pay the taxes on the property solely paying four (4) years of property
taxes since the initiation of this lawsuit 7(Id atp 4);(viii) DefendantRoben Cipriani assiduous
payment of the property taxes that would facilitate the sale of the property is not the action of an
individual who is failing to cooperate on the sale of the pxopeity (Id at p 5) and (ix) Aside
from bald assertions to this court the Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing that Defendant
Roben Cipriani has failed to coopeiate and have submitted no evidence to this Court that would
justify the award of fees against Roben Cipriani or the order that would permit them to sign away
defendant 5 right patticipate in the sale of the property (Id ) As such Defendant asked the Court
to require the Plaintiffs to submit to this Court the evidence that they communicated information
regarding this sale contract to Defendant or his counsel and to rescind its Older dated August 3
2020 and entered on the docket on August 5 2020 (Id )
‘1] 12 The Court must note at the outset that this matter was closed upon the expiration of sixty
days after entry of the May 17 2019 Judgment Thereafter Plaintiffs sought the acsistance of this
Court to enforce the May 17 2019 Judgment The August 5 2020 Order was entered to assist
Plaintiffs in the enforcement of the May 17 2019 Judgment This matter was never reopened and
remains closed Thus while the Court will address Defendant s motion for reconsideration of the
August 5 2020 Order the Court will not re litigate the case
A Rule 6 4
‘11 13 A proper Rule 6 4 motion must rely on one of four grounds (1) intervemng change in
controlling law, (2) availability of new evidence (3) the need to correct clear error of law or
7 Defendant referenced Exhibit 1 A list oi property tax payments made on the Property by Defendant from 2007
through 2020 with supporting documents
C([mam e! a! 1 Ctpnam
9X 17 CV 081
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4?
Page 9 01 13
(4) failu1e of the court to address an issue specifically raised prior to the c0u1ts ruling VI R
CIV P 6 4(1)) In his motion Defendant argued the need to correct clear error of law or to prevent
manifest injustice as the basis of hie motion However the language of Rule 6 4 clearly only
provides four grounds for reconsideration and prevent manifest injustice is not one of the four
grounds 8 The Court finds the pertinent language plain and unambiguous and thereby the Court
will give effect to the plain words of the rule See Banks (sz5 v Dore 57 V I 105 113 14
(Super Ct Oct 19 2012)(citing Corrmpet People 53 VI 470 480 481 (VI 2010)( The rules
of this Court are applied using the same standards which govern the construction of statutes and
the primary objective of the triaI court is to give effect to plain words utilized in the subject
rule ) People 1 Rnem
54 VI 116 125 (Super Ct 2010) ( The procedural rules of courts are
construed in accordance with the canons of statutory comtruction ) In re People 49 V I 297
306 (V I 2007)) ( We believe the pertinent language is plain and unambiguous thereby dispensing
with a resort to the canons of consttuction ) As such prevent manifest injustice is not a ground
for reconsideration under Rule 6 4 and the Court need not consider Defendant s arguments for
x [n Meizlzants Commercial Bank 1 0t eanwde Village Inc the court explained the history 01 the standard pruiously
used by the VirOin Islands courts to analyze motions tor reconsideration
Prior to the enactment 01 the new Rules of Civil Procedure in 2017 no specific Virgin IsIands Rule authurized
the Court to consider motions 101' reconsideration Instead the Court invoked Virgin Islands Superior Court
Rule 7 to exam“ motions tor reconsideration under a rule stalement prmided by Local Rule 01 Civil
Ptocedure 01 the District Court 01 the Virgin Islands (LRCi) 7 3 Melchcmrs Comnwtual Bank 2019 V I
LEXIS 145 at 5 n 20(Super Ct Nov 22 2019)
Local Rule 01 Civil Procedure 01 the District Court 01 the Virgin Islands (LRCi) 7 1 prmides
A party may tile a motion asking the Court to reconsider its order or decision Such motion shall be filed
within tourteen (14) days utter the en") 01 the order or decision uniess the time is extended by the Court
Extensions wi11 onIy be granted for good cause shown A motion to reconsider shall be based on
1 intervening Change in contr011ing 12m
2 ayailability 01 new evidence or
I the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustiee LRCi 7 I
0me e! a] I Opium!
9X 17 CV O81
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page 10 01 12
reconsideration based on the need to prevent manifest injustice Contra Vtevlavque1 1 Untied Corp
2018 VI LEXIS 129 at 6 7 (Supei Ct Nov 16 2018) ( The Advisory Committee on Rules
comment to Rule 6 4 refers to Supreme Court precedent prior to the adoption of the V I Rules of
Civil Procedure noting manifest injustice a9 a giound for reconsideration Because the Supreme
Court has indicated that the Advisory Committee comments may have substantive significance
the Court will address United s manifest injustice argument ) Smith 1 Law Offices of Karin A
Bent PC 2018 VI LEXIS 13 *13 n49(Super Ct Jan 29 2018)( Asaresult case law from
the old rules regime which addresses clean error of law or manifest injustice or failure of the
court to address an issue specifically raised prior to the courts ruling will be used when
considering a motion f0! reconsideration based upon Rule 6 4(b)(3) and (4) as language in the
cases allows )
l The Need to Correct Clear Error of Law
‘11 14 When assessing a motion for reconsideration based on the need to correct clear error of
law the court may grant the motion when its prion decision applied an incorrect legal precept or
failed to conduct proper legal analysis using the correct legal precept Arudson v Buchar 72 V I
50 ‘1[4(Super Ct Nov 4 2019) see Becuhstde Assam LLCt Fishman 53 V1 700 706 713
715 716 718 (V I 2010) (affirming in part and vacating and remanding in part a trial counts
denial of a motion for reconsideiation because in denying the motion the trial court ( l) correctly
applied the law when finding [10 good cause existed for extending the time for service of process
but (2) incozrectly applied the law after finding no good cause existed and then failing to complete
the second step required by the rule which prescribed the court to assess whether any additional
factors warranted granting a permissive extension of time to effectuate service of process), see
also Merchants Commerual Bank 2019 VI LEXIS 145 at >*5 6 (Super Ct Nov 22 2019)
Ctlmame! a1 1 Opium:
5X 17 CV 081
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page 11 of l?
(quoting Smith 2018 V I LEXIS 13 at *13 n 48) ( When analyzing a motion for reconsideration
based on the need to c01rect clear term: of law the Court 9 determination depends on whether
the Court in its piior decision applied an incorrect legal precept or failed to conduct proper legal
analysis using the correct legal precept ) The Court looks to the moving party to specify the legal
precept it should have applied or show how the coriect legal precept was applied incorrectly in
its earlier opinion See Smith 2018 V I LEXIS 13 at ‘17 18 ( As case law interpreting Virgin
Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 6 4(b)(3) illustrates the Court looks to Smith (1) to specify the
legal precept it should have applied or (2) to show how the correct legal precept was applied
incorrectly in its earliei Opinion (i e legal authority which would enable the Court to rule for the
first time on his personal injury claim in the context of his legal malpractice related claims or to
rule his legal malpractice related claims ripe) )
‘l[ 15 Here Defendant s timely filed motion for reconsideration failed to offer any statute case
law or any other legal authoxity that the Court could and should have applied in the August 5
2020 Order Nor did Defendant point to and explain how the legal authority used in the August 5
2020 Order Rule 70(a) of Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure was applied incoriectly or
incompletely Thus the Court finds that Defendant failed to demonstrate that there was a clear
error of law in the August 5 2020 Order 9
9 For the sake of completeness assuming alguendo that the need to pievcnt manifest injustice is a ground for
reconsideration under Rule 6 4 the Court will address Defendant s arguments in turn When analy7ing a motion for
reconsideration based on the need to prevent manilLst injustice the term manifest injustice has been described as the
result 01 a plain erior or an error in the trial court that is direct obvious and obsen able In re Mambod/z Asbestos
LitigationSeIies 69 VI 394 427 (Super Ct Oct 17 2018) (citing and quoting Cabrzta PomtDet Inc 1 51am
52 V l 968 975 (D V I 2009) But there is no manilest injustice when a litigant merely disagrees with the court In
19 Manbodh 69 V I at 4'77 428 (citing and quoting 803m 1 AT&Tofrhe VI 7'
12 F Supp 2d 721 45 V I 553 559
(D VI 2004)) cm on! In re Infant Sherman 49 V I 211457 ( A motion for reconsideration is not a second bite 01 the
apple )
Here Defendant made the lollowing arguments in support of his motion tor reconsideration First Defendant claimed
that aside 1mm the August 5 2020 Order he has not received any documents related to the sale of the property or
any notices regarding any further actions taken in this matter alter tiling of his answer and counterclaim against
Clpnam er a] 1 C11); tam
9X 17 CV 08]
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page I2 of H
‘11 16 However as noted above the August 5 2020 Order was entered in response to Plaintiffs
motion to enforce the May 17 2020 Judgment which Defendant never opposed In theit motion
to enforce Plaintiffs advised the Court inter alia that [a]n Offer to Purchase the property was
executed on February 19 2020 and the property is now under contract for sale however Defendant
is unwilling to execute the deed in order for the property to be sold that Defendant is unwilling
to execute the deed or otherwise cooperate in the sale and that Defendant s refusal to coopetate
in any way has made such a conveyance impossible and is in violation of this Court 5 Ordet and
Judgment (Motion to Enforce pp 1 2) However Defendant has now made it very clear that he
Defendant (Motion pp 2 '4 Exhibit 1) Thus it appears that Defendant was arguing that the Court should reconsider
the August 5 2020 Order because Defendant did not receive any doeuments in this matter However Defendant as
the defendant and the eounter plaintiff in this matter not only had a duty to defend against Plaintiffs elaim but also
had a duty to proseeute his eounterelaim Pius Defendant admitted in his ()bieetion that he was in reeeipt Ufa motion
from Plaintitl s {sie}e0un§e10n0r about July 19 2019 [sic] yet Defendant tailed to respond to Piaintitts motion to
enioree 0r notify the Court that up to that point he has not reeeived any doeuments in this mattel In shott Detendant
had the opportunity to address the Court prior to the August 5 2020 order and he ehose not to Seetmd Defendant
elaimed that Plaintiits Were aware that Attorney K Glenda Cameron represented Detendant in eonneetion with the
sale of the Property but PlaintiHs tailed t0 notiiy Attorney K Glenda Cameron regarding this case (Motion pp 2 3
Exhibit 2) Thus it appears that Defendant was arguing that the Court should reconsider the August 5 2020 Order
beeause Attorney K Glenda Cameron was not serVed in this matter HOWever until Attorney K Glenda Cameron
filed a notiee 0t appearanee on August 17 2020 Defendant has always appeared pro se in this matter As such until
Attorney K Glenda Cameron appeared in this matter as Defendant s eounsel neither the Court nor Plaintiits were
required to saw any documents on Attorney K Glenda Cameron Defendant s eounsel in the real estate transaetion
Third Defendant elaimed that Plaintil fs blue no evidenee to support their allegation that Defendant failed to e00perate
with the sale oi the Property and that Defendant was in faet cooperatite as shown by his eontinuous payment oi the
property tax tor the Property (Motion pp 4 5 Exhibit 3) Thus it appears that Defendant was arguing that the Court
should reconsider the August 5 2020 Order more speeitically the award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney 5 tees tor
the tiling oi the motion to enforce beeause Plaintitts failed to prove that Detendant was uncooperative and that
Defendant was in fact cooperative However as noted above Defendant admitted in his ()biection that he was in
reeeipt ot a motion from Plaintiff s [sie] eounsel on 01‘ about July 19 20l9 [sieI yet Defendant failed to respond to
Plaintiffs motion to enforee In short Defendant had the opportunity to address the Court prior to the August 5 2020
order and he chose not to As noted above [glenerally {a} motion tor reconsideration is not a seeond bite at the
apple [Instead it serves] to foeus the parties on the original pleadings as the main event and to prevent parties
from filing a seeond motion with the hindsight ol the [C]0urt s analysis covering issues that should have been raised
in the first set of motions ) Smith 2018 V I LEXIS l? at x15 (eiting to In :9 Infant Shaman 49 V I at 457) While
Defendant was a pro se Iitigant and is entitled to additional lenieney that lenieney is not a lieense {excusing non
eompiiance] with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law Montgomer) t Vugm Grand Villas St John
Oitneis Assouanon 71 VI [119 1127 28 (VI 20l9) (Internal quotation omitted) Thus the Court finds that
Defendant failed to demonstrate that there was manifest injustice in the August 5 2020 Order
Optimizer a! t Clpuam
8X 17 CV 08!
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4P
Page 12 of M
will cooperate with the sale of the Pioperty '0 As such if the Property has not sold and is not
currently under contract for sale then the Court will vacate the portion of the August 5 2020 Order
ordering that the Plaintiffs or either of them may affix the Defendant s signature to the deed of
sale and any other document pertaining to the sale of the subject property that requires Defendant s
execution
CONCLUSION
‘11 17 Based on the foregoing the Court will deny Defendant s motion for reconsideration and
if on the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Oider the Property
has not been sold and is not currently under contract for sale the Court will vacate the portion of
the August 5 2020 Order ordering that the Plaintiffs 01 eithei of them may affix the Defendant s.
signature to the deed of sale and any other document pertaining to the sale of the subject property
that tequires Defendant s execution However if on the date of entry of this Memorandum
Opinion and the accompanying Order the Property is sold or is currently under contract for sale
then the August 5 2020 Order will remain as is An Order consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith
DONE and so ORDERED this l g day of January 2021
1/ z W
HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
‘0 In his motion Detendant pointed out that Defendant Roben Cipriani assiduous payment ot the property taxes that
would facilitate the sale oi the property is not the action of an individual who is tailing t0 COOPLl‘alL 0n the sale of the
property (Motion p 5) In his Objections Defendant also pointed out that he has no objection to the sale of the
property for a reasonable pike (Objections p l)