IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
HARRIETT L SASSO )
Plaintiff ) CIVIL CASE NO SX 02 CV 538
V )
) ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF
EUPHITA O HACKETT ) POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY
)
“fend“ ) 2020 v1 Super 51U
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
1| 1 THIS MATTER was determined by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered June 25 2004
wherein the Superior Court, on the basis ofproof of ownership by adverse possession from in or about
1973, pursuant to 28 V I C § 11, granted summary judgment and Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed
that Defendant Euphita O Hackett is the owner of Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love Prince Quarter
Frederiksted, St Croix On appeal by Plaintiff/Appellant Harriett L Sasso, the Appellate Division of
the District Court of the Virgin Islands, by Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Court
filed December 6, 2006, “conclude[d] that the trial court did not err in determining that Hackett
became the adverse owner of certain property The Appellate Division remanded the matter with the
limited instructions to identify spec1fically the precise property affected and to do equity considering
Sasso’s payment of property taxes on the property 1 Those issues on remand are addressed herein and
an Amended Judgment Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is entered herewith
1] 2 The long factual and procedural history of this 18 year old case is well known to the parties
and set out thoroughly in the record and will not be repeated here Suffice it to say that Hackett had
been adversely possessing Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love for a period of years in excess of the full 15
year statutory period prior to entry of the Judgment in Territorial Court Probate No 99/1997 (In 16
Estate of Josephine Blackwell) by which Sasso was awarded the same property The trial court’s
judgment entered accordingly was not disturbed on appeal
1 The Appellate Division’s Memorandum Opinion (D C Civ App No 2004/091) incorrectly states that Sasso
paid property taxes on Plot 5 T Estate Upper Love, the adjacent plot titled to Defendant Hackett The record
reflects that Sasso and her predecessors actually paid real property tax bills addressed and mailed to them for
various years for tax parcel no 4 06303 0114 00, identified as Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love The Tax Assessor
inaccurately issued the tax bills for that parcel for all years in issue as unimproved, even though the residence
constructed by Defendant Hackett and her late husband, completed in 1980, was situated on Plot 5 U The Tax
Assessor’s error was also manifest in the designation of Plot 5 T Estate Upper Love (tax parcel no 4 06302
0228 00) as improved property, which was taxed accordingly
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538
Page 2 of 5 2020 VI Super 51U
11 3 An Evidentiary Hearing was held February 14, 2018 to address the limited issues remanded
for consideration Plaintiff Sasso appeared personally, represented by counsel, Mark L Milligan Esq
Defendant Hackett appeared personally, represented by Yvette Ross Edwards Esq The parties were
provided the opportunity to supplement the record after the Hearing, pursuant to a schedule requiring
Plaintiff’s filing by March 2, 2018, following which Defendant could respond within 14 days
Plaintiff submitted her Supplemental Brief on Remand, filed March 14, 2018 followed by her
Amended Supplemental Brief on Remand, filed March 19, 2018 Sasso’s original Supplemental Brief
was accompanied by her Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief Out of Time, “so ordered” by
the Court, entered March 16 2018 On March 20 2018, after the extension had been granted, Hackett
filed her Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motlon to File Supplemental Brief Out of Time, followed by her
March 23, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration of March 16, 2018 Order Granting Plaintiff‘s Motion for
Extension of Time to File Supplemental Brief Sasso filed her Opposition April 16 2018 and Hackett
filed her Reply May 4, 2018 Considering the relevant factors with regard to Plaintiff’s request for an
extension of time to file her post hearing brief as set forth in V I R Civ P 6(b)(1), that request was
granted Because the Court perceives no clear error of law in granting the extension and no manifest
injustice flowing therefrom, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied
114 Also filed March 14, 2018 was Plaintiff Sasso’s Motion for Leave to File Answer to
Counterclaim Out of Time On March 20, 2018, Defendant Hackett filed her Opposition, to which
Sasso filed her Reply on April 13 2018 This matter was tried, judgment was entered and appeal was
determined, with remand for the limited purposes noted above The Appellate Division did not find
error in the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Hackett and did not remand the case for new
trial That is, in addition to being grossly out of time by 14 years, because the substantive issues raised
by Defendant’s Counterclaim were determined by the trial court and affirmed on appeal (without
Plaintiff raising the issue of her purported lack of opportunity to file her answer), the filing of an
answer now would be futile and serve no purpose Accordingly, Sasso’s Motion for Leave to File
Answer will be denied
ll 5 The issues on remand are addressed as follows
Clarification of precise property affected
Despite evidence of significant confusion not limited to the parties, but also on the part of
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538
Page 3 of 5 2020 VI Super 51U
others, including the Public Surveyor at the Department of Public Works, the Tax Assessor and
Elizabeth Benjamin, predecessor in title ownership and former owner of both Plot 5 T and Plot 5 U
the precise property that was the subject of the parties dispute and of the judgment entered June 25
2004 by the Memorandum Opinion and Order wherein Defendant Euphita O Hackett became owner
by adverse possession is legally described as follows
Plot No 5 U Estate Upper Love, Prlnce Quarter, St Croix, U S Virgin Islands,
consisting of 0 500 U S acre, as more fully shown on OLG Drawing No 2606
dated April 9 1969 last revised May 17 1994
1| 6 Because trial court’s judgment awarding ownership of Plot 5 U Estate Upper Love to
Defendant Hackett was not disturbed on appeal and is not affected by this limited remand, the £13
Pendens, recorded February 3, 2005 by Plaintiff Sasso in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for St
Croix, at PC 960, page 198, as document number 2005000573, is subject to discharge and the
Amended Judgment Order entered herewith will discharge said L13 Pendens
Consideration of the equities
fl7 The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that Hackett became the owner
of Plot 5 U by adverse possession but remanded the matter with the instruction that this Court
“consider the equities of the case and the parties ” Specifically, the Appellate Division directed this
Court to “determine whether it is fair for Sasso to take nothing ”
1] 8 Sasso urges that the interests of justice require that this Court revisit the merits of Hackett s
adverse possession claim The trial court determined that Hackett had become the adverse owner of
Plot 5 U, a determination with which the Appellate Division found no error The record herein was
remanded for the limited purposes noted above This Court has been directed to make an additional
finding as to the issue of the precise description of the property and to consider the equities to
determine whether it is fair that Sasso take nothing in light of her payment of property taxes '1 his
Court is without authority to amend, or as Sasso urges, in effect to overturn on this remand, the trial
court’s ruling that Hackett was the owner by adverse possession of Plot 5 U See Hodge v
Bluebeards Castle Inc 62 V I 671 684 (V l 2015)
1] 9 In the alternat1ve, on equitable grounds, Sasso seeks an award of adjoining Plot 5 T Estate
Upper Love to herself Hackett and her late husband purchased Plot 5 T from Elizabeth Benjamin in
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538
Page 4 of 5 2020 VI Super 51U
1972 The same year, Benjamin deeded Plot 5 U to Edna Sealey and Josephine Blackwell, as joint
tenants with rights of survivorship Upon Sealey’s death, Blackwell became sole owner of Plot 5 U
and Sasso’s claim as devisee arises from the 1998 adjudication of Blackwell’s estate in probate
1110 When Frank and Euphita Hackett sought to begin constructlon of their home in 1973,
Benjamin directed them to the property they had purchased and they applied for and obtained the
required permits from the Department of Public Works The home was completed in 1980 and Mr
and Mrs Hackett moved in Hackett has lived there since However the residence was built not on
Plot 5 T Estate Upper Love deeded to them by Elizabeth Benjamin but rather on Plot 5 U that
Benjamin had deeded seven years earlier to Sasso’s predecessors
it 11 From the start of construction in 1973, and for substantially more than the 15 year adverse
possession term, no one questioned Hackett’s possession or ownership of Plot 5 U notwithstanding
the fact that the possession was open and notorious The world, including Sasso and her predecessors
in interest, were on notice from start of the construction of Hacketts’ residence in 1973 that Hackett
claimed to be owner of that plot that was ultimately correctly identified as Plot 5 U Estate Upper
Love
if 12 ‘Because of the harsh consequences faced by the record owner, the statutory requirements are
specifically calculated to give the record owner notice that someone else is claiming title to the
property ” Mahabzr v Hezrs ofGeorge, 63 V I 651, 659 (V I 2015) (citations and internal quotations
omitted) No notice of claim of title to property could be more suited to giving actual notice to a title
owner of property than the adverse claimant constructing and inhabiting a private residence on the
property
11 13 The consequences to the title owner are indeed harsh The law requires and Hackett supplied
strict proof of her uninterrupted, exclusive, actual, physical adverse continuous and notorious
possession of Plot 5 U under claim of title Because the trial court correctly found that Hackett
satisfied all the statutory prerequisites, judgment of adverse ownership entered for Hackett as to Plot
5 U In the totality of these circumstances the Court does not find that Sasso is entitled to an equitable
conveyance to her of Plot 5 T To grant such relief would be to reward the inattentiveness and
disregard exhibited by Sasso and her predecessors over two decades with regard to the property
deeded to them in 1972
Memorandum OpltllOIl and Order
Sasso v Hackett SX 02 CV 538
Page 5 of 5
2020 VI Super 51U
fl 14 However, the record does reflect that Sasso and her predecessors paid property taxes on Plot
5 U for several years, which payments have redounded to the benefit of Hackett As such equity is
best served by granting Sasso reimbursement for those property tax payments plus interest at the
statutory rate from the date of each such payment Hackett will be required to reimburse Sasso for the
following tax payments reflected in the record
Tax Year Payment Amount Payment Date (interest accrues on each from date paid at 9%)
1988 $ 74 10 12/19/89
1991 $ 82 50 10/20/92
1992 $ 92 40 8/23/93
1994 $ 92 40 6/14/96
1998 $130 74 11/29/00
1999 $116 59 11/29/00
2001 $111 57 8/21/02
{I 15 Because the issues addressed on remand pursuant to the December 8, 2006 Order of the
Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands result in entry of an Amended Judgment
Order, pursuant to VI R Civ P 58(a) that Amended iudgment Order 1s set out in a separate
document, entered herewith
11 16 With regard to the Motions filed post remand, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of March 16, 2018 Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Brief is DENIED It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Counterclaim Out of Time is
DENIED
DATED April ‘7 2020
DOUGLAS A BRADY UDGE
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLES Distribution List
Clerk of the Court Mark L Milligan Esq
Yvette Ross Edwards, Esq
I ‘di'i‘ * I,
«any... “41me
. k S nervisor
I / 2’0»
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
HARRIETT L SASSO )
Plaintiff ) CIVIL CASE NO SX 02 CV 538
)
V ) ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF
EUPHITA O HACKETT ) POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY
Defendant )
)
AMENDED JUDGMENT ORDER
Consistent with the Memorandum Opinion entered herewith, the limited issues addressed on
remand pursuant to the December 8, 2006 Order of the Appellate Division of the District Court of the
Virgin Islands (D C Civ App No 2004/091) require entry of this Amended Judgment Order pursuant
to V I R Civ P 58(a), amending in part the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Superior Court
entered June 25, 2004 Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that the precise property affected in this matter which
is owned by Euphita O Hackett, effective as of entry of the Order herein of June 25, 2004, is defined as
follows
Plot No 5U Estate Upper Love, Prince Quarter, St Croix, U S Virgin Islands, consisting
of 0 500 U S acre as more fully shown on OLG Drawing No 2606 dated April 9 1969
last revised May 17 1994
It is further
ORDERED that the L13 Fem/ens against the foregoing property, recorded February 3, 2005 in
the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for St Croix, at PC 960, page 198 as document number 2005000573
is CANCELED and DISCHARGED It is further
ORDERED that, in consideration of the equities of the case and the parties Plaintiff Harriett L
Sasso shall have JUDGMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT of property taxes paid against Defendant
Hackett, with interest at the legal rate (9% per annum) from the date of each payment to the date of entry
of this Order, and at the rate of 4% per annum hereafter until fully paid, in the following amounts
Tax Year Payment Amount Payment Date (interest accrues on each from date paid at 9%)
1988 $ 74 10 12/19/89
1991 $ 82 50 10/20/92
1992 $ 92 40 8/23/93
1994 $ 92 40 6/14/96
1998 $130 74 11/29/00
1999 $116 59 11/29/00
2001 $111 57 8/21/02
DATED April 2 2020
ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES DOUGLAS A BRADY IUD E
Clerk of the Court
Distribution List
a” g A Lula”; Al Mark L Milligan, Esq
17/: MO
.011“ C er k upervisor V Yvette Ross Edwards Esq