IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
DESAREE ARTHURTON GARVEY
Plaintiff Case No SX 2024 CV 284
V.
DEONTE GARVEY an individual and
as Trustee of the STEPHEN GARVEY
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
AZARIA GARVEY, an individual and as
THE STEPHEN GARVEY
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
CHARMAINE IGENA SMITH an
individual DODEANNA LEONARD an
individual EDWARDO GOMEZ an
individual ALL PERSONS OR
ENTITIES CLAIMING AN INTEREST
IN PLOT NO 27 ESTATE LOWRY
HILL ALL PERSONS 0R ENTITIES
CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN PLOT
NO 56 A ESTATE RUBY and ALL
PERSONS OR ENTITIES CLAIMING
AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
CONTAINED IN THE STEPHEN
GARVEY REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST
Defendants
Cite as 2024 VI Super 34U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Filed September 18 2024)
Andrews, Jr , Judge
INTRODUCTION
111 Plaintiff files suit to quiet title in certain properties titled in either her
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 2
name her now deceased husband 5 (i e Stephen Garvey) name or in both She
claims prior to his death Mr Garvey illegally transferred real and personal marital
property to several individuals and she seeks a declaratory judgment clarifying
ownership of the properties Plaintiff also seeks an injunction prohibiting all
Defendants from possessing transferring selling disbursing or dissipating the
properties Pending final determination by the Court Plaintiff filed an emergency
motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to preserve
the status quo This opinion addresses Plaintiff's emergency motion and will deny
it
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff Desaree Arthurton Garvey resides at 27 Estate Lowry Hill in St Croix
Virgin Islands Compl 2 11 3 Stephen Garvey (Mr Garvey) is the deceased husband
of Plaintiff Compl 4 1| 14 He died on June 14 2024 Compl 16 1] 72' Ex 5 They
were married on May 11 2012 and no children were born to the marriage Pl 5 Aff 9
10 Mr Garvey is the father of defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey
Compl 3 11 6 In or about 2022 he was diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer and his
health deteriorated Compl 11 111] 49 50 Defendant Deonte Garvey resides in North
Carolina Compl 2 1] 4 Defendant Azaria Garvey resides in Georgia Compl 3 1] 5
1 The facts are derived from undisputed complaint allegations exhibits filed with the
complaint and the parties in court proffers at a hearing held on August 28 2024 They
are undisputed for the most part and any disputed fact is specially noted
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V | Super 34U
Page 3
Defendant Deodeanna Leonard resides on St Croix and is Mr Garveys ex wife
Compl 3 1] 7 Defendant Charmaine Igena Smith is a resident of St Croix Virgin
Islands Compl 3 1] 9 Defendant Edwardo Gomez is a resident of St Croix Virgin
Islands Comp! 31] 10
REAL PROPERTY
27 Estate Lowm Hill
On January 26 2010 ownership of 27 Estate Lowry Hill St Croix Virgin
Islands was transferred to Plaintiff and Mr Garvey as joint tenants with rights of
survivorship Pl 3 Aff Ex 1a On June 13 2024 Mr Garvey executed a deed of gift
purportedly transferring his interest in that property to defendants Deonte Garvey and
Azaria Garvey Compl 15 1] 69 Pl 8 Aff Ex 2a Plaintiff claims defendants Deonte
Garvey and Azaria Garvey have been changing passwords on accounts for her
security system and electric bill for the property Compl 17 1] 79' Pl 3 Profier This
conduct she alleges limits her access to vital information regarding the accounts fl
1] 80
56 A Estate Ruby
During the marriage Mr Garvey purchased Plot 56A Estate Ruby St Croix
Virgin Islands consisting of 3 4 acres of land 2 PI 9 Aff Ex 1 at 7 Compl 6 1] 20 He
subdivided and transferred the property by deed as follows
2itfinclear from Plaintiff’s Emergency motion if this property was title in Stephen
Garvey 3 name oniy The Plaintiff only asserts that it was bought with marital funds
The Court presumes the property was titled only in Mr Garvey 5 name
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 4
Plot Size Transferee Date of Transfer
56 A A A 5 acres Sarah Duggins 12/19/20
56A A 5 acres James Newton 12/29/20
56A C 5 acres A and M Williams 01/04/21
Remainder 56A 593 acres Latisha Jenkins 01/31/21
56A B 3 and 56A B 235 acres Deonte Garvey 01/08/24
Plot 56A B 2 232 acres Deonte Garvey 02/08/24
Plot 56A B 1 248 acres Dimitrous Jefferson 02/12/24
Compl 61122 Pl sAff Exs 1| 1] 1K 1L 1M 1N 1O
PERSONAL PROPERTY IN STEVEN GARVEY TRUST
On March 11 2024 a trust was created named Stephen Garvey Revocable
Living Trust (SGRLT) Compl Ex 3 It was settled by Mr Garvey lg Defendants
Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey are named as trustees in the trust Compl Ex 3
Various personal property (purchased by Mr Garvey) a business and two bank
accounts were placed in the trust as follows 3 Emergency Mot for TRO 8 1] 25
3 In her Emergency Motion Plaintiff lists three (3) items as being contained in the SGLRT
ie two 2017 Acuras and one 2015 Hyundai Sonata Emergency Mot for TRO 2 3
Those items however are not in the trust document filed with the Court PI sAff Ex 3
At the August 28 2024 hearing Plaintiff proffered that the vehicles were purchased and
titled in Innovative Used Car Sales name who is not a named defendant She proffered
that the Acura s are in the possession of an unnamed mechanic who is not a defendant
in this case She also proffered that the Sonata is at an unknown location As those
items appear not be connected to any named defendant the Court excludes them from
its analysis regarding the issuance of a restraining order
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 VI Super34U
Page 5
Innovative Used Car Sales
In or about 2017 Stephen Garvey began operating a business named
Innovative Used Car Sales Comp! 10 1] 46 The tradename Innovative Used Car
Sales was placed in the SGRLT Compl Ex 3 at4'|]4a
Checking Account Bank of St Croix
The SGRLT contains a checking account with number 700008658 Compl Ex
3 4 1] 4b
Savings Account PFCU
During the marriage Plaintiff and Mr Garvey opened a joint savings account
with Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PFCU) Account No 2593183 01 1 Marital
funds and rental income earned during the marriage were deposited into the account
Compl 10 1145 The savings account was placed in the SGRLT Compl Ex 3 at 40
Plaintiff claims Mr Garvey gave defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey
passwords to the PFCU and other accounts held jointly by Mr Garvey and her
Compl 17 1| 81 Additionally Plaintiff claims that Deonte and Azaria Garvey have
access to her other accounts including her VIYA internet Liberty telephone USAA
vehicle insurance CIGNA health insurance her credit cards and Mr Garvey 8 Apple
account Compl 18 1] 83 In June 2024 Plaintiff withdrew $22 500 00 from the joint
savings account to protect it from being taken by Mr Garvey PI 3 Aff Ex 1 at 9
11 60
2014 Case Backhoe
The SGRLT contains a 2014 Case Backhoe with Serial No
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 6
JJGN580NVEC700199 Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 4d Plaintiff claims defendant Smith
received $60 000 on May 27 2024 for a backhoe Compl 16 1] 76
On May 27 2024 a $60 000 check made to defendant Charmaine Smith from
K E C A Heavy Equipment in Tortola for a Backhoe was deposited into a First Bank
Account supposedly owned by Charmaine Smith Exs 29 2h Proffer of C Smith
She shortly thereafter transferred the funds to two or three individuals as instructed
by Mr Garvey Proffer of C Smith
Plaintiff claims defendant Gomez is in possession of the backhoe and refuses
to release it to her Compl 77 To the contrary Gomez claims Mr Garvey and he
purchased the backhoe in 2021 for $70 000 and each contributed $35 000 towards its
purchase Proffer of E Gomez It is unclear whether the backhoe Plaintiff associates
with the $60 000 payment is the same backhoe that Gomez proffered he possesses
or whether any of them is the 2014 Case Backhoe named in the trust
Skid Steer Case 2011
The SGRLT contains a 201 1 Skid Steer with Serial No JAFTR320HBM440188
Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 4e
Chevrolet 2013
The SGRLT contains a silver 2013 Chevrolet with VIN 1GBBKZCB8DF153780
Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 4f
Mercedes 2019
The SGRLT contains a 2019 Mercedes GLC with VIN WDCOJ6EBXKF508092
Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 49 The vehicle was titled in Stephen Garvey 8 name since June
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 VI Super 34U
Page 7
25 2021 Pl 5 Aff Ex 1h Plaintiff claims the car was purchased for and driven by
her and that Mr Garvey stated he would transfer title to her Compl 10 1] 47
Emergency Mot for TRO 16 1111 34
Suzuki 2022
The SGRLT contains a 2022 Suzuki Haya motor bike with VIN
JS1EJ11B7N7100095 Compl Ex 3 at41I4h
Avanti 1997
The SGRLT contains a 1997 Avanti Boat with Vessel Identification No
ERQS1205A797 Compl Ex 3 at41I4i On April30 2024 Stephen Garvey executed
a bill of sale to sell the boat to Egbert Damon Wheater for $78 000 00 Pl 3 Supp
Aff Ex 20
Ba|a 1996
The SGRLT contains a 1996 Baja Boat with Identification No AGCG3197F596
Compl Ex 3 at 4 11 4k On April 30 2024 Mr Garvey executed a bill of sale to sell
the boat to Egbert Damon Wheater of Anegada British Virgin Islands for $40 000 00
Pl sSupp Aff Ex 2b
On May 17 2024 Wheatley submitted a telegraphic transfer of $60 000 from
his bank account in Tortola BVI to Popular Bank in St Croix for the benefit of
defendant Deodeanna Leonard as a deposit for payment of the boats (presumably the
Avanti and Baja) Compl Supp Aff Ex 2d The paymentcleared the same day Q
defendant Leonard denies ever receiving the funds Proffer by D Leonard
On May 22 2024 a $58 000 check made to defendant Charmaine Smith from
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V | Super 34U
Page 8
K E C A Heavy Equipment in Tortola for for final payment 2 boats (presumably the
Avanti and Baja) was deposited into Charmaine Smith s First Bank Account LBS
2c 2f Proffer of C Smith She shortly thereafter transferred the funds to two or three
individuals as instructed by Stephen Garvey Proffer of C Smith
BEAC 2005
The SGRLT contains a 2005 BEAC with VIN 4XWW32375N808140 Compl
Ex 3 at 4 11 4j
Town 2000
The SGRLT contains a 2000 Town with VIN 5AZBBZ729YF007069 Compl Ex
3 at 4 1] 4k
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
On May 3 2024 Plaintiff filed a divorce complaint against Stephen Garvey
Compl 14 1] 65 Pursuant to her motion the divorce court issued a Standing Order
on May 20 2024 prohibiting Plaintiff and Mr Garvey from among other things
a Destroying transferring or otherwise harming or reducing the value of the
property of either party and
b selling transferring assigning mortgaging encumbering or in any other
manner alienating any of the property of either party whether personal property
or real estate property and whether separate or community
Standing Order Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Fam No SX 2024 DI 044 OMS 14 05
20 24 The order does not specify any personal or real estate property lg On June
23 2024 the Family Court dismissed the proceedings with prejudice in light of Mr
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 9
Garvey 5 death on June 14 2024
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed her complaint on August 20 2024 On August 23 2024 she filed
the instant emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction No answer to the complaint nor response to the motion was filed by any
of the defendants On August 28 2024 the Court held a hearing on the motion
Plaintiff appeared through counsel Kye Walker Esq Defendants Deodeanna
Leonard Charmaine Smith and Edwardo Gomez appeared in person without
counsel4 The Court heard proffers from the parties and took the matter under
advisement
APPLICABLE LAW
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief This is an equitable as opposed to a legal
remedy 3RC & Co v Boynes Trucking System 63 VI 544 553 (VI 2015) A
trial court has wide latitude in considering such remedies fl Such relief is only
available where there is no adequate remedy at law |_d at 554 As such a party
seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate that the injunction is necessary to avoid
certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award does not adequately
4 The Court notes that although the complaint herein was filed on August 20 2024 and
the Motion for Restraining Order on August 23 2024 neither document was served on
any of the defendants by the time of the August 28"1 hearing However the defendants
who appeared for the hearing were served by court marshals with summons to appear
and were given copies of the complaint for review before commencement of the hearing
The remaining two defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey who reside in the U S
mainland per court documents were not served and did not appear at the hearing
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 10
compensate E citing Yusuf v Hamed 59 V I 841 854 (V l 2013) Virgin
Islands rules provide that a temporary restraining order may issue only where the
moving party presents facts in the complaint or an affidavit which clearly show
that an immediate and irreparableinjury loss or damage will result to the movant
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition V I R Civ 65 The Virgin
Islands Supreme Court has recognized four factors required for the issuance of
injunctive relief
(1)whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on
the merits
(2)whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the relief
(3)whether granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the
nonmoving party and
(4)whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest
Yusuf v Hamed 59 V l 841 847 (V I 2013) The court must balance all factors
under a sliding scale analysis while weighing the relative strengths of each
Boynes Trucking System u at 555 57 Thus a weak showing of irreparable
harm may be overcome by a strong showing on the merits and visa versa Q at
556
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
enjoining Defendants from transferring selling gifting disbursing withdrawing or
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 11
dissipating the real and personal property mentioned in her motion' and from
interfering with accessing or modifying her or Stephen Garvey 3 accounts Mot
for TRO 17 18 None of the defendants were served with her complaint or
emergency motion The Court will thus only consider her motion for a temporary
restraining order and will deny it for the reasons that follow 5
To obtain her requested relief Plaintiff much establish a) she will suffer
imminent irreparable harm if relief is denied b) there is a reasonable probability
she will succeed on the merits c) the grant of a restraining order will not result in
greater harm to Defendants and d) the grant of a restraining order is in the public
interest6 V I R Civ P 65(b)(1) The Court will address each factorseparately
IMMINENT IRREPARABLE HARM
Real Estate Lowm Hill
Plaintiff claims defendants Deonte and Azaria Garvey are interfering with
the quiet enjoyment of her residence located at 27 Estate Lowry Hill St Croix
Virgin Islands She claims they changed passwords on accounts connected to the
5 A preliminary injunction may issue only on notice to the adverse party V I R Civ P
65(a)(1) Since none of the defendants were served with notice of Plaintiff’s complaint
or motion for injunctive relief this Court will not address the motion for preliminary
injunction until notice is served on them Virgin Islands law however permits the
issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party under certain
conditions VIR Civ P 65(b)(1)
6 Under Virgin Island law a plaintiff must also certify her efforts to give notice to and
provide reasons why it should not be required At the hearing Plaintiff proffered that she
submitted her complaint and motion to a process server and requested expedited service
Nevertheless service was not effected Under the circumstances the Court finds that
Plaintiff is in substantial compliance with the notice requirements
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V l Super 34U
Page 12
residence thus impacting her ability to access and manage home utility bills
vehicle and health insurance accounts credit cards and home security systems
and exposes her to possible unwanted surveillance Emergency Mot for TRO 14
111] 56 59 The nature of this harm is not susceptible to monetary repair There
is no way to reasonably calculate the value of the inconvenience burden and
related stress of inability to pay one 5 utility bills inability to manage one s home
security system electronically being potentially exposed to unwanted surveillance
Such harm the Courtfinds is imminent and irreparable
Real Estate Ruby
Plaintiff claims Mr Garvey prior to his death subdivided and transferred
several lots from 56A Estate Ruby to some Defendants and other individuals
besides her She claims Defendants are using the conveyance to cloud the title
of the properties Emergency Mot for TRO 20 However the only defendant
alleged to have any connection with the Ruby property is Deonte Garvey Notably
Plaintiff has not sued any of the other five (5) transferees of the Ruby property nor
claim that the conveyances to them were invalid or causing her harm She does
not assert she is or ever was in possession of 56A Estate Ruby nor any of its
subdivisions She does not explain how Deonte Garvey is allegedly clouding title
to the properties As per Plaintiff title to 56A was originally in Stephen Garvey 3
name solely until he subdivided and sold lots therefrom Under the circumstances
Plaintiff has not established how Deonte Garvey or any defendant is clouding title
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 13
or otherwise harming Plaintiff at all much less irreparany
Personal Property in Stephen Garvey Trust
The Stephen Garvey Trust contains the business trade name Innovative
Used Car Sales 2 bank accounts 2 pieces of heavy equipment (i e a Case
Backhoe and a Skid Steer)' 2 vehicles (a Chevrolet Truck and a Mercedes SUV)
a Suzuki Haya motor bike 2 boats (an Avanti and a Baja) a BEAC (2005) and a
Town vehicle Pl 3 Aff Ex 3 at 4 Plaintiff asserts generally that she suffered
significant loss of property due to Mr Garveys duplicitous actions in fraudulently
conveying their marital property to various third parties Emergency Mot for TRO
22 The trustees she claims are asserting their claims to the property fl Plaintiff
states she has been unable to take possession of the backhoe belonging to the
marital estate due to defendant Gomez refusing to relinquish possession which
puts their sale at risk lg at 23 Defendants Plaintiff contends may divest her of
possession of all her property before the Court could resolve her complaint
allegations
Plaintiff does not allege that she ever had possession of any of the property
listed in the trust other than the joint savings account Her main claim of harm is
her assertion of title and right to possession of property transferred to Defendants
All trust assets are susceptible to monetary valuation Accordingly any loss
Plaintiff may suffer through deprivation of possession can be compensated for
through money damages 3R0 & Co 63 VI at 553 (stating party seeking
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et A!
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 14
injunctive relief must show certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award
does not adequately compensate ) In short her alleged harm is not irreparable 7
SUCCESS ON THE MERITS
Real Estate Lowg Hill
Plaintiff seeks to restrain defendants Deonte and Azaria Garvey from
interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her residence located at 27 Estate Lowry
Hill St Croix Virgin Islands She and Mr Garvey acquired the property on
January 26 2010 as joint tenants with rights of survivorship PI s Afr Ex 1a On
June 13 2024 Mr Garvey executed a deed of gift purportedly transferring his
interest in 27 Estate Lowry Hill to defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey
Compl 15 11 69 In a joint tenancy both parties possess equal rights in the
enjoyment of the property during their lifetime LaForce v Estate of LaForce 72
VI 312 317 (Sup Ct 2019) Due to this right the death of one joint tenant
automatically causes the entire estate to pass directly to the survivor tenant fl
citing In re Estate of Phillip
41 VI 37 41 (VI Terr Ct 1999) Sassov Hackett
No 8X 02 538 2020V| LEXIS 44 at 6 (Super Ct Apr 8 2020) (stating upon
death of a tenant the other became the sole owner of the property held as joint
tenants with rights of survivorship ) Davis v Grasso No ST 07 CV 365 2009 V I
LEXIS 58 at 1 n 1 (Super Ct Nov 17 2009) (stating decedent and co tenant
7 With respect to the joint savings account Plaintiff alieged she has already withdrawn
one half of $45 000 00 that was in the account Having secured her share it is unclear
what loss she suffers regarding the account
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 15
owned property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and ownership passed
to co tenant upon death of decedent by operation of law) As such when
Stephen Garvey died on June 24 2024 Plaintiff the surviving tenant became the
sole owner of 27 Estate Lowry Hill The June 13 2024 deed purporting to transfer
Garvey 3 share to defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey is thus a nullity
Accordingly Plaintiff’s success on the merits regarding the Lowry Hill property is
extremely strong
Real Estate Ruby Property
Plaintiff claims No 56A Estate Ruby is marital property and she has titie as
part of the marital estate of Mr Garvey and her Emergency Mot for TRO 20 Her
reliance on divorce law regarding marital property is misplaced
Virgin Islands law vests jurisdiction in the Family Division of this Court when
issuing final divorce orders to equitably distribute the marital property of the
parties 16 V l C § 109(a)(7) This includes with certain exceptions real and
personal property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage M The
right to equitably distribute marital property thus exists solely in the context of a
divorce proceeding Smithv Henley 67Vl 965 976 (VI 2017) (stating [w]here
a party in a divorce proceeding is unable to prove that property was either acquired
prior to the marriage or is subject to the enumerated exceptions the property
is considered marital property ) (emphasis supplied) and Inniss v lnniss 65 V I
270 275 (V l 2016) (stating 16 V I C 109(a)(7) grants the Superior Court
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et At
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 16
jurisdiction to equitably distribute marital property during a divorce proceeding )
(emphasis supplied)' LaForce v Estate of LaForce 72 VI 312 319 (Super Ct
2019) (stating the petitioner could not claim property as marital property because
that doctrine has exclusive use in domestic relations and divorce ) Therefore
absent a pending divorce or dissolution proceeding this court is without authority
to restrain or distribute marital property
The Court 5 potential jurisdiction over marital property does not preclude any
spouse from unilaterally managing or disposing of his or her separate property
without knowiedge or consent of the other during the marriage where no divorce
proceedings have been instituted 8 See 16 V I C § 67 (providing that [t]he
husband and wife shall have the right to manage and dispose of their respective
estates except as othen/vise provided in this chapter ) Accordingly Plaintiff's
reliance on the Virgin Islands definition of marital property is misplaced Such
definition is limited to the purposes and authority stated in 16 V | C § 109(a) See
14 V l C 109(a)(7) (stating the definition of marital property is for purposes of this
paragraph )
Here there is no pending divorce proceeding as it was dismissed on June
8In support of her marital property argument Plaintiff asserts that Mr Garvey purchased
the property with marital funds Emergency Mot for TRO 8 11 25 Other than her bald
assertion she presents no evidence nor argument regarding the basis of her knowledge
as to the source of funds Mr Garvey used to purchase the property Further most of the
Ruby lots were transferred before tension in the relationship increased in 2022 The Court
thus finds insufficient evidence of any fraud associated with Mr Garveys purchase or
subsequent conveyance of the Ruby property
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey El Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 17
24 2024 subsequent to Stephen Garveys death Even if one were pending all
of the Estate Ruby properties (i e the subdivisions) were transferred to the trust
prior to filing of the divorce complaint on May 3 2024 (or the issuance of the
standing order on May 20 2024) and would not have constituted marital property
Accordingly Stephen Garvey was free to dispose of his separate Ruby properties
without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent Accord Fournier v Fournier 376 A 2d
100 102 (Sup C t Maine 1977) (interpreting almost identical definition of marital
property and stating the Act does not prevent married persons from owning
property separately during marriage and disposing of it in any fashion either of
them may choose assuming neither a separation nor a divorce intervenes )
Under the circumstances Plaintiff has no interest nor rights in the Ruby property
disposed of by Stephen Garvey Her success on the merits regarding the Ruby
property is thus extremely weak
Personal Property Steven Garvey Trust
The Stephen Garvey Trust was created on March 4 2024 and contains the
business trade name Innovative Used Car Sales (a business that Stephen
Garvey was licensed to operate) a joint savings account at PFCU a checking at
Bank of St Croix 2 pieces of heavy equipment (i e a Case Backhoe and a Skid
Steer) a Chevrolet Truck' a Mercedes (SUV) titled in Stephen Garvey 3 name a
Suzuki Haya motor bike 2 boats (an Avanti and a Baja)' a BEAC (2005) and a
Town vehicle Pl 3 Aff Ex 1 at 5 7 Plaintiff does not claim ownership to any of
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024Vl Super34U
Page 18
the trust property except the joint savings account She claims Garvey bought the
trust property with marital income and it therefore constitutes marital property
which could not be conveyed without her knowledge and consent PI 5 Aff Ex 1
at? Emergency Mot for TRO 151162 The trust she concludes is thus invalid
as it composed ofinvalid and fraudulent conveyances Mot for TRO 21 Plaintiff
misconstrues applicable law
To establish a valid trust there must be 1) a valid conveyance of trust
property' 2) a settlor who intends to create a trust 3) a conveyance to a trustee to
hold legal title and 4) legal title that is held for the benefit of a third party
beneficiary Turnbull Wheatley v Turnbull No 2019 062 2024 VI Supreme
LEXIS 24 at 17 (Sup Ct Jun 5 2024) Plaintiff’s sole attack on the trust targets
only the first element i e the validity of the conveyance of property into the trust
without her knowledge and consent
Contrary to Plaintiff s assertion the assets placed in the trust were Garvey 3
separate property which he was free to dispose of as he saw fit as explained
above He conveyed them into the trust on March 14 2024 before
commencement of the May 4 2024 divorce proceedings Upon conveyance title
to those assets were vested in the trustee and Mr Garvey lost title to them fig
v Aggleton 61 VI 339 (VI 2014) citing Robert L Glicksman Sustainable
Federal Land Management Protecting Ecological Integrity and Preserving
Environmental Principal 44 Tulsa L Rev 147 179 80 (2008) (stating that atrust
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 19
mechanism vests legal title to trust property in a trustee ) The assets thus ceased
to be marital property Accordingly Plaintiff's challenge to the validity of the trust
and her claim to trust property is weak
HARM TO DEFENDANTS
Real Estate Lowg Hill
The only defendants potentially impacted by a restraining order applicable
to the Lowry Hill property are Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey As they are not
in possession of the property and appear to have no legal right to possession or
title they will bear no harm if a restraining order was issued as requested by
Plaintiff
Real Estate Ruby
Plaintiff seeks an order restraining the owners of the Ruby properties from
transferring selling gifting dissipating etc their lots Deonte Garvey is the only
defendant in possession of any Ruby property and thus the only one a restraining
order would impact Such an order would restrict and hamper his ability to
encumber and/or dispose of the property as he sees fit He would thus suffer harm
if a restraining order is issued restricting his use of the property
Personal Property Steven Garvey Trust
Plaintiff’s restraining order request regarding trust property is ambiguous for
the most part The property was transferred to the trust on March 14 2024 and
provided for distribution to Deonte and Azaria Garvey upon Mr Garvey 6 death
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 20
Comp! Ex 3 However some property are no longer in the trust or control of any
defendant Assessing harm to the named defendants under those circumstances
is impossible in some instances as explained below
It is unclear who currently has control over the tradename Innovative Used
Car Sales or what conduct by which defendant Plaintiff seeks to restrain
Assessing harm regarding this asset is thus not possible There is no information
as to what amount of funds if any is in the Bank of St Croix Checking or the
Pentagon Federal Credit Union Savings accounts Assuming they contain funds
and defendants Deonte and Azaria Garvey can access them they would suffer
harm if the Court were to restrict their use It is unclear whether the 2014 Case
Backhoe is the machine allegedly sold to Wheatley in Tortola or is the backhoe
defendant Gomez proffered was bought by Mr Garvey and him Nevertheless
restraining Gomez use of the backhoe he possesses for business use would
cause him harm Plaintiff proffered that she has possession at Lowry Hill of three
vehicles placed in the trust the 2019 Mercedes the 2013 Chevy Silverado and the
2022 Suzuki Haya She seeks an order restraining defendants generally from
attempting to remove them There is no evidence that any defendant has made
any such attempt Nevertheless the Court sees no harm resuiting to any
defendant should a restraining order be issued No evidence was presented
regarding the location or possessor of the 2011 Skid Steer or the 2000 Town or
the 2005 BEAC vehicles As such the Court cannot assess any harm relative a
Arthurton Garvey v Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 21
restraining order as to them None of the defendants are in possession of the £91
Avanti Boat the 1996 Sam Boat or the proceeds from their sales An order as
Plaintiff requests requiring defendants Smith and Leonard to return any proceeds
they may have possessed would create a serious hardship to them Furthermore
such an order would not constitute a restraining order
PUBLIC INTEREST
An analysis of the three forgoing factors leads the Court to decline issuance
of restraining order as explained below Consideration of the public interest factor
generally supports the Courts conclusion after analyzing the first three factors
For this reason the Court will not conduct a detailed analysis of the public interest
factor
CONCLUSION
Deonte and Azaria Garvey
The main harm Plaintiff alleges with respect to defendants Deonte Garvey
and Azaria Garvey is their interference with her utility internet and security
accounts regarding the Lowry Hill property Although the applicable factors weigh
in favor of issuing a restraining order this Court declines to do so The Court takes
judicial notice that the accounts impacted by the defendants alleged interference
are of the nature that the owner can simply contact the respective provider and
change the password and username or restrict access Here Plaintiff has a deed
to the Lowry Hill property but has not sought to remedy her concern by simply
Arthurton Garvey v Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 22
contacting the provider As injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and
Plaintiff has a simple practical alternative avenue for relief issuance of a
restraining order is unwarranted
As explained above Plaintiff has not established how Deonte Garvey is
harming her with respect to the Ruby property and her claim on the merits
regarding that property is weak Deonte would suffer harm should an order issue
restricting his use of two Ruby properties transferred to him
With respect to personal property in the trust Plaintiff has not shown any
imminent harm by Deonte and Azarias alleged possession of username and
passwords to the checking and savings account nor has she shown she would
likely succeed on the merits regarding her claim to the accounts With respect to
the savings account Plaintiff clearly has an alternative means of relief since the
account is jointly held in her name
Charmaine Smith and Dodeanna Leonard
Plaintiff claims defendants Charmaine Smith and Dodeanna Leonard are
unlawfully in possession of funds from the proceeds of the Wheatley
conveyances Mot for TRO 17 11 71 She thus seeks an order requiring the
transfer of such proceeds to the Court Such an order is inappropriate under the
circumstances
First Plaintiff has not established any irreparable harm she would bear if the
proceeds were not returned This is so because she has not demonstrated any
Arthurton Garvey v Garvey Et Al
2024 V | Super 34U
Page 23
pre sale entitlement to the boats and backhoe that were sold Further Leonard
proffered that she never received the proceeds and Smith proffered she received
them on behalf of Mr Garvey and disposed of them as he instructed Under these
circumstances it would be an unjustifiable hardship should these defendants be
required to deposit the proceeds (for which there is no evidence they currently
possess) in the Court 3 registry More significantly however the harm claimed is
purely monetary and can adequately be remedied via a monetary award Issuance
of a restraining order is thus inappropriate
Edwardo Gomez
Plaintiff claims defendant Edwardo Gomez is in possession of a backhoe
that was placed in the trust and he should be restrained from disposing of it in any
way She seeks an order restraining him from disposing of the machine The
backhoe she claims was purchased by Wheater who paid defendant Smith
$60 000 for it on May 27 2024 See Pls Supp Aff Ex 2 2h Gomez proffered
however that he purchased the backhoe in 2021 and still possesses it It is thus
unclear which backhoe Plaintiff seeks to restrain She has failed to establish any
harm resulting from Gomez continued possession of the backhoe in his
possession and has failed to establish any legal right to it Gomez on the other
hand would suffer harm if restricted as to his right to dispose of the machine which
he proffers were purchased partly by him Under the circumstances the issuance
of a restraining order is inappropriate
Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al
2024 V I Super 34U
Page 24
After balancing the applicable factors as to each Defendant this Court
concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish any cognizable harm she suffers
from any of Defendants conduct other than the interference of her security and
utility accounts by defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey Her likelihood
of success on the merits with respect to defendants Leonard Smith and Gomez is
weak The harm she claims to suffer from the conduct of Deonte and Azaria is not
imminent and can be remedied via monetary damages or other nonjudicial means
available to her See V I R Civ P 65(b)(1)(A) (requiring injury or loss to be
immediate and irreparable to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order )
Accordingly the Court declines to issue a temporary restraining order against any
of the defendants in this matter An order consistent herewith will be issued
contemporaneously
DATE September 18 2024 E
ALPHONSOG ANDREWS JR
Superior Court Judge
Attest
TAMARA CHARLES
CLERK OE T:H2?URT
CO m
RT \E\\\
LE K-m
DATE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
District of St. Croix
Desaree Arthurton-Garvey, Case Number: SX-2024-CV-00284
Plaintiff Action: Quiet Title
v.
Deonte Garvey et al
Defendant.
NOTICE of ENTRY
of
Memorandum Opinion
To Kye Walker, Esq. [email protected]
:
Charmaine Smith Edwardo Gomez
Dodeanna Leonard Deonte Garvey
Azaria Garvey
Please take notice that on September 18, 2024
a(n) Memorandum Opinion
dated September 18, 2024 was/were entered
by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.
Dated September 18, 2024 Tamara Charles
:
Clerk of the Court
By:
Dayanara Felix
Court Clerk Supervisor