IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

FILED

July 26, 2923 93:03 eM
8X-2020-CV-00572
TAMARA CHARLES

CLERK OF THE COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
MONA L. ROBERTS, SK-2020-CV-572
Plaintiff,
ACTION FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT,
v. TO QUIET TITLE AND TO SET ASIDE

SALE

JEROME BLYDEN, -

Defendant. | CITE AS; 2023 VESUPER 4 \ \
Appearances:

Charlotte K. Perreil, Esq.
Dudley Newman Feuerzeig LLP
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
For Plaintiff

Jerome Blyden
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
For Defendant, Pro se

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLOCKS, Administrative Judge
€] THIS MATTER came before the Court for a bench trial on October 4, 2022.
BACKGROUND

#2 On April 9, 2002, Defendant Jerome Blyden (hereinafter “Blyden’”) filed a complaint
against John S. Roberts D B’A Roberts Works for You (hereinafter “Contractor John S. Roberts”’)
in Civil Case No, ST-2002-CV-174 (hereinafter “St. Thomas Case”) in an action for debt, fraud,
and unjust enrichment. On April 26, 2004, a judgment was entered in the St. Thomas Case in favor
of Blyden against Contractor John S. Roberts in the following amounts: (i) $33,804.96 in
compensatory damages, (ii) $6,000 in punitive damages, and (i1i) $2,100.00 in attorneys fees and

costs, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of entry of the judgment until
Roberts v. Blyden
MEMORANDUM OPINION 2023 VISUPER “7+
Page 2

the judgment is paid (hereinafter “St. Thomas Judgment”).' Subsequently, Blyden attached the
real property located at Plot No. 101 of Estate South Grapetree Bay, East End Quarter “B”, St.
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, consisting of 0.909 U.S. acre, more or less, as more particularly shown
on OLG Drawing No. 4618, dated December 27, 1988, revised on July 8, 1997 (hereinafter
“Property”) to satisfy the St. Thomas Judgment. On June 28, 2019, the Office of the Virgin Islands
Marshal held a public sale of the Property and Blyden was the highest bidder. On September 10,
2019, an order confirming the sale of the Property to Blyden was entered in the St. Thomas Case.
«3 On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff Mona L. Roberts’ (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) filed a complaint
against Blyden. In her complaint, Plaintiff sought for declaratory judgment that Plaintiff holds the
sole legal title to the Property free and clear of Blyden’s interest, to quiet title to the Property, and
to set aside the sale of the Property to Blyden. In response, Blyden filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which was subsequently denied by an
order entered on September 20, 2021.
14 On October 4, 2022, the parties appeared for a bench trial. Plaintiff appeared with her
counsel and Defendant appeared pro se. Witnesses and exhibits were presented, and arguments
were heard. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
q5 Rule 52 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find
the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions

' The St. Thomas Judgment against Contractor John S. Roberts was subsequently renewed.
” Defendant never filed an anawer after the denial of his motion to dismiss.
Rebcrisy Blyeden

$X-2020-CV-572 AD;
MEMORANDUM OPINION 2023 VESUPER (oo V,
Page 3

may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or
a memorandum of decision filed by the court. Judgment must be entered under Rule 58.

VIR. Civ. P. 52{a)(1)(A}.
DISCUSSION

£6 In accordance with Rule $2(a) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure and having
reviewed the entire record, the Court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law.

Findings of Fact

|. Plaintiff was married to John Sherril Roberts.

2. According to the deed of gift, executed on July 12, 2016, John Sherril Roberts as
grantor conveyed the Property to “John Sherri! Roberts and Mona L. Roberts,
husband and wife” as grantee.

3. There was no evidence to suggest that any other estate in property other than a
tenancy by the entirety was intended by the July 12, 2016 deed of gift.

4. John Sherril Roberts was a Caucasian male.

5. John Sherril Roberts’ date of birth was February 16, 1937, and date of death was
October 27, 2019.

6. Contractor John S. Roberts was an African American male of West Indian descent.

7. Contractor Johns 5. Roberts’ date of birth was July 22, 1942, and date of death was
October 5, 2021.

8. John Sherril Roberts and Contractor John S. Roberts were two different individuals.
Conclusions of Law
“7 In this instance, Plaintiff argued that John Sherril Roberts and Contractor John S. Roberts
were two different individuals, that the St. Thomas Judgment was against Contractor John S.

Roberts not John Sherril Roberts, that John Sherril Roberts and Plaintiff held title to the Property,
Roberts v. Alyden

5X4-2020-CV.572 A? .,
MEMORANDUM OPINION 2023 VISUPER ©? > u,
Page 4

that Contractor John S. Roberts did not have any rights or interests in the Property, and that the
Property was wrongfully attached by Blyden in the St. Thomas Case to satisfy the St. Thomas
Judgment. Meanwhile, Blyden argued that John Sherril Roberts was Contractor John S. Roberts,
that the St. Thomas Judgment was against Contractor John S. Roberts and therefore against John
Shernl Roberts, that John Sherril Roberts held title to the Property and therefore Contractor John
S. Roberts held title to the Property, and that the Property was rightfully attached by him in the St.
Thomas Case to satisfy the St. Thomas Judgment.

18 Given the Court’s finding above that John Sherril Roberts and Contractor John S. Roberts
were of different ethnicity, birthed on different dates, and died on different dates, John Sherri!
Roberts and Contractor John S. Roberts were two different individuals. The St. Thomas J udgment
was entered against Contractor John S. Roberts and not against John Sherril Roberts. There was
no evidence of any judgment entered against John Sherril Roberts in Blyden’s favor. In other
words, Contractor John S. Roberts owed money to Blyden under the St. Thomas Judgment while
John Sherril Roberts was not a party in the St. Thomas Case and John Sherril Roberts did not owe
money to Blyden under the St. Thomas Judgment or any judgment. Furthermore, given the Court’s
findings above that the July 12, 2016 deed of trust conveyed the Property to John Sherril Roberts
and Plaintiff, John Sherril Roberts and Plaintiff-—-not Contractor John S. Roberts---held title to the
Property since July 12, 2016 and Contractor John S. Roberts did not hold any interests or rights in
the Property. As such, the Court concludes that the Property which was not the property of the
defendant Contractor John S. Roberts---was wrongfully attached by Blyden in the St. Thomas Case
to satisfy the St. Thomas Judgment. Cf Title 5 V_LC. § 251 (“The plaintiff, at the time of issuing

the summons, or at any time afterwards, may have the property of the defendant attached as
Roberts v. Blyden

SX-2020-CV-572 Zi Os
MEMORANDUM OPINION 2023 VISUPER SA
Page 5

security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, unless the defendant gives
security to pay such judgment, as in this chapter provided, in the following cases: (1) In an action
upon a contract, express or implied for the direct payment of money, and which is not secured by
mortgage, lien, or pledge upon real or personal property, or, if so secured, when such security has
been rendered nugatory by the act of the defendant. (2) In an action upon a contract, express or
implied, against a defendant not residing in the Virgin [slands.”). Accordingly, the Court will
vacate the September 10, 2019 order in the St. Thomas Case confirming the sale of the Property
to Blyden and vacate the sale of the Property to Blyden at the June 28, 2019 public sale held by
the Office of the Virgin Islands Marshal.

49 The Court will next turn to the question of whether Plaintiff is the sole owner of the
Property. Given the Court’s findings above that the July 12, 2016 deed of trust conveyed the
Property to John Sherril Roberts and Plaintiff as husband and wife, John Sherri] Roberts and
Plaintiff held title to the Property as tenants by the entirety with rights of survivorship. See Title
28 V.LC. § 7(c) (“A conveyance or devise of real property to husband and wife jointly creates an
estate by the entirety unless otherwise provided in the deed or will.”); see also, Martin v. Martin,
58 V.E. 620, 630 n.8 (V_I. 2013) (“[I]t is well established that a grant of property to husband and
wife is considered a tenancy by the entirety, unless there is some evidence to the contrary within
the deed. 28 V.I.C. § 7(c). The property here was granted to the couple approximately four years
after they married and there is nothing to suggest that any other estate was intended.”). Thus, upon
John Shem Roberts’ death in 2019, Plaintiff became the sole owner of the Property. See Mahabir
v. Heirs of George, 63 V.1.651,660n.4(V.1 2015)(*And — unlike a joint tenancy ora tenancy by

the entirety —- a tenant in common lacks a right of survivorship in her cotenants’ ‘equal or unequal
Roberts v. Blyden
SX-2020-CV-572

MEMORANDUM OPINION 2023 VISUPER 7 3) 4
Page §

undivided shares,’ with her interest tn the property remaining unchanged by the death of a
cotenant.”’); see also, Modeste y. Benjamin, No. 81-57, 

 (D.V.I.
Nov. 3, 1981) (“The special, and significant feature of an estate by the entirety is that the spouses,
“by reason of their legal unity by marriage, are deemed by the common law to take the whole estate
as a single person with the right of survivorship."”). Accordingly, the Court will enter declaratory
judgment in favor of Plaintiff that she is the sole owner of the Property free and clear of Blyden’s
claims. See Title 5 V.LC. § 1261 (“Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have
power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be
claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory
judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form
and effect, and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.”);
see also, Title 5 V.LC. § 1262 (‘Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other
writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a
statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of
construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and
obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.”). The Court will also quiet
title of the Property in favor of Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION

{10 Based on the foregoing, the Court wili vacate the September 10, 2019 order in the St.
Thomas Case, vacate the sale of the Property to Defendant at the June 28, 2019 public sale, enter
declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiff that she is the sole owner of the Property free and clear

of Blyden’s claims, and quiet title of the Property in favor of Plaintiff. This matter will be closed
Roberts «. Blyden

SX-2020-CV-572 Pan
MEMORANDUM OPINION 2023 VISUPER “Ts
Page 7 /

but the Court will retain jurisdiction to grant such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate,
such as an order for the Recorder of Deeds, if deemed necessary, to make the recordation to quiet
title of the Property in favor of Plaintiff. An order and judgment consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith.

2 JA
DONE and so ORDERED this 22 day of July, 2023.

ATTEST: Kh lf oe 446"

Tamara Charles HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS
Clerk of the C / f~ Administrative Judge of the Superior Court
Court Clerk |

Dated: < Jug ale, : Tt!