IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF )
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN ) CASE NO ST 2021 RV 00005
) Originating Case No ST 2019 PB 00080
Deceased )
)
Cite as 2022 VI Super 15U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
111 Pending before the Court is a Notice of Appeal & Petition for Review filed by the Government of
the Virgin Islands on March 17, 2021 The Appellant, the Government of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter
VI Government ), appeals two Magistrate Orders both entered on February 26, 2021, which (1) denied
the Government 5 Motion to Intervene in the probate action as a claimant against the Estate (entered nunc
pro tunc to February 4, 2020) and (2) struck the Government 3 Emergency Motion to Freeze A11 Estate
Assets and Cash on Hand For the following reasons, the Magistrate 5 Orders will be affirmed
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
112 On August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was found dead, while in custody in New York for sex crimes
and on August 15, 2019, the probate of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein was created To establish an
independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes of resolving sexual abuse claims
against Jeffrey B Epstein, the Executors of the Estate filed an Expedited Motion for Establishment of a
Voluntary Claims Resolution Program (hereinafter called the Epstein Fund)
113 On January 15, 2020, the VI Government filed a lawsuit against the Epstein Estate, the 1953 Trust,
and numerous Epstein business affiliates and associates for violation of the Criminally Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (CICO)I and for civil conspiracy seeking forfeiture and divestment of assets in
favor of the VI Government, civil penalties, damages, and other remedies 2
114 On January 23 2020, the VI Government filed a Motion to Intervene in the probate matter pursuant
to Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure Thereafter, on February 4 2021, the VI
Government filed an Emergency Motion to Immediately Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand The V1
ll4VIC §600etseq
See Vl Government 5 Notice of Appeal
In the matter of the Estate ofjeffre} E Epstein 2022 VI Super 1:)U
ST 21 RV 0:)
ST 19 PB 80
Memorandum Opinion
Page 2
Government asserted that the Emergency Motion was necessary due to the Estate having breached its
commitment to fund the Epstein Victims Compensation Program
115 A hearing on the VI Government s motions was held February 4 2020, after which the Court
orally denied the Motion to Intervene without prejudice as well as the Emergency Motion to Immediately
Freeze All Assets and Cash on Hand reasoning that because the Government IS not a party to thlS action
and IS not permztted t0 Intervene the Government does not have standing to move the Court tofreeze the
assets and all Its cash on hand 3 Consistent with the Court 5 ruling that the Government lacked standing,
the Court issued an Order on February 26, 2021, striking the Government 5 Emergency Motion and all
responses thereto from the record 4
{[6 In response thereto, the Government filed this Appeal and Petition for Review of Magistrate
Judge s Orders on March 17 2021 In the Petition the Government asserts that the Probate Court 8 ruling
not only fails to recognize the Government s interest, which supports mandatory or permissive
intervention but also ignores the complexity of this proceeding and its significance to Epstein s Victims
and to the people of the Virgin Islands more broadly
117 On March 29, 2021, the Co Executors 0f the Epstein Estate filed the Co Executors Response to
Government of the United States Virgin Islands Notice of Appeal & Petition for Review of Magistrate
Judge 5 Orders In their response, the co executors argued that (l) the Government 5 appeal is untimely,
(2) that the Government 5 failure to state a claim further substantiates their lack of standing and (3) that
the Government s Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand is Moot
JURISDICTION
118 A Superior Court judge has jurisdiction to review judgments and orders issued by Magistrate
Judges, when they exercise their original jurisdiction as provided for in Title 4 V I C §123(a) See, V I
Super Ct Rule 322, et seq An order or judgment involving probate is a matter that a Superior Court
Judge may review if appealed Title 4 V I C § 123(a)(4)
fil9 VI Super Ct Rule 322(a) provides that final OldeIS or judgments of the Magzstrate DlVlszon
resolvmg completely the merits of the cases whzch came before them pursuant to thezr orlgmal
3 A written order was issued on February 26 2021 (mmc pro tune to Februm) 4 2020)
4 A copy of the order was submitted as an Exhibit 2 with the VI Government 5 Notice of Appeal
In the matter of the Estate ofjeffre) E Epstein “ 2022 VI Super bu
ST 21 RV 03
ST 19 PB 80
Memorandum Opinion
Page 3
jltrlSdlCIIOI’l as provzdea’ by thle 4 VI C § 123(a) ate Immediately appealable tajudges 0fthe Superior
Court ofthe Virgin Islands as well as any mterlocutory orders appealable by law
1110 V I R CiV P Rule 54 (a) defines a judgment as a decree or order from which an appeal lies
Where an action has multiple claims of reliefs, including third party claims, the court may direct entry of
a finaljudgment as to one or more butfewer than all claims or parties Ifthe court expressly determines
that there IS n0 jltSf reason for delay 3
1111 In the February 26, 2021 Order the Court determined that because the VI Government is not a
party, it lacks standing to move the Court in the present action Therefore, the Court struck the VI
Government s Motion to freeze assets and all responses thereto The determination that the VI
Government is not a party to the action was made due to the VI Government 5 failure to intervene as a
claimant as required by the probate rules However, the Motion to Intervene was denied without prejudice
which allowed for the VI Government 5 error to be corrected and calls into question whether this is a final
judgment with respect to the VI Government Further there was no recitation made by the Court that
expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay As such, this is not a final judgment eligible
for appeal
1112 Title 4 V I C §123(c) states that a judge of the Superior Court may conszder any pretrial matter
handled by the magistrate judge where It has been shown that the magistrate judge 5 order ZS clearly
erroneous or contrary to law This Court has determined that the magistrate judge 5 order is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law for the foregoing reasons
ISSUES RAISED FOR APPEAL BY THE VI GOVERNMENT
1 Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government 3 Motion to Intervene as a claimant
against the Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein
2 Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government 5 Emergency Motion to Freeze All
Estate Assets and Cash on Hand
ANALYSIS
1 Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government’s Motion to Intervene as a
claimant against the Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein
5 v 1 R Civ P Rule 54(b)
In the matter of the Estate ofjeffre} E Epstein 2022 VI Super lbU
ST 21 RV 03
ST 19 PB 80
Memorandum Opinion
Page 4
1113 In its appeal the VI Government asserts that as Plaintiff in the CICO action against the Epstein
estate and other Epstein businesses that it has an interest in the assets of the Estate, as well as an interest
in ensuring that the laws of the Virgin Islands are enforced for the benefit of the VI Government, the
People of the Virgin Islands and the Victims of Epstein crimes 6 According to the VI Government the
Motion to Intervene was filed to ensure that it was adequately represented in the probate matter, but was
denied stating that the VI Government should enter as a claimant rather than as an intervenor
1114 In the Co Executors Opposition to Government 5 Motion to Intervene filed on January 31, 2020,
the Co Executors assert that it is the Virgin Islands Code and the Virgin Islands Rules for Probate and
Fiduciary Proceedings (the Probate Rules ) that set forth the specific steps a purported claimant must
take to bring a claim against an estate and participate in a probate proceeding Rule 24 has no application
to this proceeding 7
1115 At the February 4 2020 hearing the VI Government was advised by the Magistrate Judge that it
should enter the proceedings as a claimant as required by Probate Rules Case law has repeatedly
established that when two statutes cover the same situation, the more specific statute takes precedence
over the more general one 8
1116 In this case, the Magistrate Judge was correct in advising the VI Government to enter as a claimant
and denying its Rule 24 Motion to Intervene, as the Probate rules are specifically created to address probate
proceedings as stated in V I R Prob Rule 1 9
1117 Under the Title 15 V I C § 391, all persons having claims against the estate are required to present
their claims within six months from the date of notice of administration The V1 Government was given
the opportunity to enter as a claimant, after being so directed at the February 4 2020 hearing, but failed
to do so However this Court notes that the VI Government is still able to enter as a claimant under Title
15 V I C § 392 which states in pertinent part that
A claim not presented it zthm 3m months qftet the fitst publication of the notice IS not bar) ed
but It shall not be paid until the claws presented 1111/71}? that p61 10d hme been satisfied and {f the
6 See Government of the United Stated Virgin Islands Notice of Appeal & Petition for Review of Magistrate Judge 5 Orders filed by
VI Government on March 17 2021
7 See Co Executors Opposition to Government 5 Motion to Intervene filed on January 31, 2020
8Edmondv US 520US 651 657 1178 Ct 1573 1578 137L Ed 2d 917(1997))
9 These VII gm Islands Rulesfot Pl abate and Fzductal y PI oceedmgs shall apply In pl abate gum dianshlp t) ust and othel fiductary
placeedmgs
In the matter of the Estate ofjeffre} E Epstein 2022 VI Super laU
ST 21 RV 03
ST 19 PB 80
Memorandum Opinion
Page 5
claim 18 not then due OI (f contingent It shall nevertheless be plesented as any othe/ clatm Until the
admlmstlatmn has been completed a chum against the estate not baited by the statute 0fhmztat10m
may be ptesented (1110M ed and pald out of (my assets then m the hands 0/ the evecutat 01
admzms trawl not other H zse appropl Iated 0) liable
1118 In this instance the VI Government 3 failure to entei the probate matter as a claimant within six
months of the executors publicized notice of administrations, does not bar it from being able to move
forward as a claimant in the con ect manner as provided by the Rules of Probate The V1 Government
was directed 0f the appropriate method to adequately represent its interest by the Magistrate Judge who
regularly presides over probate proceedings 10 Yet, it inexplicably failed to abide by the guidance which
was intended to achieve the original purpose of the motions
{[19 The notorious nature and history of the deceased individual in this probate matter coupled with its
main stream attention, is not an indication that the case should be treated differently from any other
probate case
2 Whether the Magistrate Judge properly denied the Government’s Emergency Motion to Freeze
All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand
1120 The Magistrate Judge properly denied the VI Government's Emergency Motion to Freeze All
Estate Assets and Cash on Hand because the VI Government failed to established standing as a claimant
as noted above Failure to take the necessary steps to enter the case as a claimant, prevented the VI
Government from securing the necessary standing to freeze the assets of the Estate It would have been
inappropriate for the Magistrate Judge to grant the Government 5 Emergency Motion to freeze all assets
when the VI Government failed to follow the required procedures as set forth in Title 15 V I C §§ 391
394 and the relevant probate rules
CONCLUSION
{[22 The premises considered, the Magistrate 5 Orders entered on February 26 2021 (nunc pro tune to
February 4 2020), denying the Government s Motion to Intervene in the Probate action and striking the
Government 5 Emergency Motion to Freeze All Estate Assets and Cash on Hand, are AFFIRMED
'0 Each magistrate judge may (4) heal all non felony traffic offenses litter cases misdemean01 criminal cases where the maximum
punishment is limited to not more than 364 days imprisonment arraignment and probable cause hearings in any criminal or traffic
offense matter small claims cases and probate matters Title 4 V I C 123(a)
In the mqtter 0f the Estate ofjeffrC} E Epstein 2022 VI Super 13U
ST 21 RV 03
ST 19 PB 80
Memorandum Opinion
Page 6
An Order consistent with this Opinion shall follow
DATED February flfi 2022 Mgfifi
DEBRA WATLINGTON
Judge of the Superior Court
of the Virgin Islands
ATTEST
Tamara Charles
e Court
By Ezééfi/M
Brenda onsanto
Court Clerk Supervisor; / 2 /0@
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF )
JEFFREY E EPSTEIN ) CASE NO ST 2021 RV 00005
)
) Originating Case No ST 2019 PB 00080
Deceased )
)
ORDER
Consistent with the Memorandum Opinion of even date it is hereby
ORDERED that the two Magistrate Orders entered on February 26, 2021 (Nunc pro tune to February 4,
2020) and February 26 2021 are AFFIRMED and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner 3 Appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and it is further
ORDERED that a copy of this Order and the accompanying Opinion shall be directed to Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Carol Thomas Jacobs, Esq ; and Christopher Allen Kroblin, Esq
’7 /
DATED February ”.4 2022 wM
DEB S WATLINGT N
Judge of the Superior Court
of the Virgin Islands
ATTEST
Tamara Charles
Cl e Court
By:\ : Q 2 WM
Brenda M santo
Court Clerk SupervisoroA/Zgiw