IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) PROBATE NO ST 2010 PB 00073
)
CELESTINA L THOMAS )
deceased )
)
Cite as 2021 VI Super 17U
MEMORANDUM DECISION
CARR H , Magistrate Judge
111 THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Cieditor s claim originally submitted by
Administiatiix Angela O Heskey Peters (heieinaftei Petitionei ) on August 8, 2014, and then
iefiled multiple times, with revisions and ineleases, over the next several yeais, culminating in a
claim submitted on Janualy 29 2021, in the amount of $379,327 03 The Coult finds that it must
ielate the tortuous path this claim has taken 0ve1 the yeais before denying same in pait and g1 anting
in pait, as leasoned below
BACKGROUND
112 The above named decedent died on June 18, 2008 Piobate 0f he1 estate was initiated on
August 6, 2010, and Letteis 0f Administiation we1e issued to Petitionei, one of three heirs of the
estate on Decembei 1 1, 2012 Acc01ding to the Veiified Inventmy filed on August 6, 2010, the
estate’s assets consist solely of Parcel No 4A 4 Estate Anna’s Retreat, St Thomas, U S Virgin
Islands
1B At the time of the decedent’s death, Petitione1 was in the middle of building a house on the
pieviously unimproved land ofPaicel No 4A 4, having begun construction in approximately 2005
01 2006 The Court can chart the couise of the constmction both through the decedent 3 submitted
documentation and through the V I Government Real Property Tax Bills issued for the parcel over
the years before 2006 the parcel was repeatedly valued at $15 368 00 while by 2008 its value
hadjumped to $136 200 00 and by 2013 it had increased again to $250 400 00 where it held steady
for several years before losing value between 2017 and 2018 The parcel is now valued at
$206 900 00 as of its 2020 tax bill
114 The Court is not privy to the precise nature of the understanding between the decedent and
Petitioner regarding the construction of the intended dwelling, but it notes the following facts first,
that Petitioner appears to have paid for at least the bulk of the construction costs of the house, as
reflected in the documentation included in her claim; and second, that the Court has been presented
with no proof, written or otherwise, regarding whether the decedent ever intended to reimburse
Estate of Celestina Thomas 2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Ordei
Page 2 of 11
Petitioner for her expenditures The decedent left no testamentary instrument of any kind, so the
Court cannot know whether she wished for Petitioner to make use of or acquire title to the land
and house upon its completion Upon her death, however, the decedent remained the sole and
proper titleholder of Parcel No 4A 4
115 After the decedent 5 death in 2008, Petitioner continued to use her own funds in the
construction of the house on the estate 5 property, both before and after filing the instant probate
matter August 6, 2010 Upon receiving Letters of Administration on December 11, 2012,
Petitioner had Notice to Creditors and Debtms posted and published in accordance with law,
directing all those with claims against the estate to make said claims known to Petitioner No
claims were submitted
16 Nearly twenty months later, and just bef01e the September 15, 2014 hearing on the Final
Account was held, Petitionei filed hei own Cieditor 5 claim for the sum of $242,500 00 on August
8, 2014 The claim indicated that the amount lepiesented payment of real estate p1 opeity taxes,
watei and powe1 auth01ity bills, Innovative telephone bills and additional receipts of expenses
associated with building and maintaining Paicel No 4A 4 , further stating that the listed sums
we1e paid duiing the lifetime of the decedent and continue[d] during [Petitioner s] tenure as the
administiatrix of the estate ’ Soon aftei filing hei claim, Petitionei submitted an Infonnative
Motion on Septembei 18, 2014, advising the Court that she would not be seeking an awaid of
Administiatiix’s fees 1'01 sewice pe1 formed in administeiing the decedent’s estate
117 At the September 15, 2014 Final Account hearing, the Cou1t iejected Petitionei’s claim
without piejudice, explaining that the hundieds of pages of unorganized receipts, bills, invoices,
quotes, and othei documents that constituted Petitioner’s claim we1e entiiely incompiehensible
The Cow“: dilected Petitionei to submit an 01 ganized claim, with stated categOIies fiom which it
could deciphei the particulai expenses documented
18 Subsequently, on Octobei 24, 2014, Petitionei resubmitted hei claim in two bound
volumes, with an increased amount claimed of $267,980 66 However, the Court again found
Petitioner 5 claim to be too dis01 ganized to pioperly examine or evaluate The Court theief01e
issued an Order on November 25, 2014, making the following demands of Petitionei
1 Petitioner 5 claim must be divided into two categories before and aftei
Decedent 5 death If Petitioner is claiming expenses before Decedent 5 death,
she must provide the factual giounds upon which she claims reimbursement
Otherwise, expenses paid before Decedent 3 death will be denied outright
2 The particular expense for which Petitioner claims reimbursement must be
identified and placed in the appropriate identifiable category, in chronological
order, as Petitioner can claim only those expenses that have supporting receipts
or other documents that show payment thereof by Petitioner What Petitioner
has done in her bound volume is to provide the Court with a Table of
Contents ’, without identifying the particular expenses, with specificity, for
Estate of Celestina Thomas 2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Order
Page 3 of 11
which a receipt or other evidence of payment can be found in the bound
volumes themselves
3 Expenses related to improvements as opposed to repair and maintenance of
Parcel No 4A 4 Estate Anna s Retreat must be separated The exact nature of
the repair or improvement must be explained The Court should not have to
review the receipts themselves to deteimine the nature of the repair work or
improvement being claimed by the Petitioner, except to verify that the expense
was indeed incurred and paid
4 Finally, if Petitionei is claiming reimbursement of improvements she made to
the pioperty, then she must identify the legal basis or authority upon which she
made this impiovement without p1i01 written auth01ity from the Court
19 After entry of the Court s Older, the Court received no further filings in the instant mattei
for over two yeais On July 24, 2017, Petitioner finally filed a 1evised credit01 s claim, again in
two volumes, but with an increased sum of $334,309 64 As the Court iequested, the Petitionei
sepaiated the two volumes into those sums expended prim to the decedent’s death and those
following it She also fuithel divided the expenses within each volume by categ01y, such as
“utilities”, “telephone”, and ‘ supplies, mateiials and repaiis” Howevei, she once again failed to
piovide any factual giounds upon which she claimed 1eimbursement fox expenses paid bef01e the
decedent’s death She also failed to identify any legal basis 01 authoxity upon which she ielied in
making impioveinents to the estate aftei the decedent 5 death without p1i01 w1itten auth01ity f1 om
this Couit
1110 On Januaiy 22, 2021 the Law Offices of Pedio K Williams (Pedio K Williams, Esq , as
counsel) filed a Notice of Appeaiance, and Petitionei filed a Notice of Ciedit01 5 Claim in the sum
of $379,327 03 The Notice also stated that the July 24, 2017 claim was inCOIpOIated the1ein
Howevei, the Notice included no ieceipts, bills, 01 other evidence repiesenting the expenses
inc1easing the claim fiom $334,309 64 to $379,327 03 Rather, it included only a single page
exhibit list stating that an additional total of $49,017 39l had been spent in vaiious categories of
expenses On January 29 2021, a single page creditor 3 claim was filed, which simply reiterated
the claim of $379,327 03 but again included no attachments 01 evidence of such additional
expenditures At present, theie have been no further filings in this matter, and as the matter came
on for a Final Account hearing on September 15, 2014 and all closing documents have been filed,
the instant claim is the only impediment preventing the Court from closing out this matter Upon
close consideration, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Petitioner s claim for the reasons
that follow
I The Court cannot account for the total of $49 017 39 reached by Petitioner in her most recent claim the difference
between the previous claim of $334,309 64 and the new claim of $379,327 03 equals an addition of $45,017 39 not
$49 017 39 The Court will therefore hereinafter refer to the additional claim as $45 017 39 not $49 017 39
Estate of Celestina Thomas 2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Oldel
Page 4 of 11
EXPENSES INCURRED PRIOR TO THE DECEDENT S DEATH
1111 In her July 24, 2017 claim, as explained above, Petitioner divided her purported expenses
into two volumes, with one containing expenses incurred prior to the death of the decedent and the
other containing expenses incurred after same Volume 1, containing expenses incurred prior to
the decedent 3 death, includes an exhibit list showing that the total amount of expenses therein
equals $200,757 43 The vast majority of the compensation requested for pre death expenses
$197,322 52 is categorized as supplies, materials and repairs , apparently for the construction
of Parcel No 4A 4 The remaining $3,434 91 is divided among utilities”, telephone ,
“landscaping (yard cleaning)”, and ‘license and permits” for Paicel No 4A 4
1 Insufficient Proof of Claim
1112 As pieviously stated, the Court s November 25, 2014 Oidei demanded that, [i]f Petitionei
is claiming expenses before Decedent’s death, she must provide the factual grounds upon which
she claims ieimbursement Otheiwise, expenses paid before Decedent 5 death will be denied
outiight ” In no filing submitted to date has Petitionei piovided any factual giounds f01 claiming
expenses incuried prior to the Decedent s death As a result of such failure, the Court sees no
16218011 not to deny all p16 death expenses claimed by Petitionei
1113 Howevex, even weie the Couit to consider the expenses on then melits, it finds that
Petitionei would still be baned fiom collecting on all pie death expenses Without any factual
giounds pioviding context 01 1easoning f01 Petitionei’s claim fox such expenses, the Couxt is left
with only two leasonable possibilities that the expenses weie giatuitous, given by a daughtel to
he1 elde1ly mothei with no expectation of 1ei1nbu15ement, 01 that the expenses weie incun ed unde1
some contiact expiess 01 implied, by which the decedent would eventually 1epay Petitionei in
some way f01 he1 expenditmes In eithei event, Petitionei is now bailed fiom collecting on such
expenses
2 Gratuitous Expenditures
It is well settled that no man can do another an unsolicited kindness and make it a
mattei of claim against him; and it makes no diffeience whethei the act was done
fiom meie good will or in the expectation of compensation Unless the party
benefitted has done some act from which his assent to pay for the sewice may be
fairly infeiied, he is not bound to pay
In re Estate ofJoseph 3 VI 207 211
141 F Supp 865 866 (D VI 1956)
1114 If Petitioner 8 expenditures made prior to the decedent 5 death were gratuitous in nature,
that is, for the benefit of the decedent with no promise or agreement of reimbursement, then she
has no claim upon the decedent s estate for compensation Id The Virgin Islands District Court
has found that the existence of a familial relationship is not alone sufficient to form the
presumption that services performed or expenses paid by one family member on behalf of another
are gratuitous Joseph, 3 V I at 210,
141 F Supp at 866 However, the familial relationship does
weigh substantially in favor of gratuitous giving, as it is hardly unusual for an adult child to
financially support her elderly mother without any expectation of reimbursement
Estate of Celestina Thomas
2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Older
Page 5 of 11
1115 Additionally, the Court must also observe the absence of evidence to the contrary
Petitioner has submitted no evidence, despite a direct order from the Court to do so, showing any
grounds by which she expected to be compensated for providing financial assistance to the
decedent during her lifetime The Court has received no written instrument suggesting a contract
or understanding between the two women, no showing of partial repayment evidencing an intent
to eventually repay the balance, and no testimony of an oral promise or guarantee made at any
time Of particular weight to the Court is the fact that Petitioner’s submitted expenditures date
back to at least 1997, showing that she was providing the decedent with financial help for at least
eleven years piior to her death If there was any intention on the decedent 5 part to repay such aid,
5111er she would have made some effort on that front during such an extended period of time
1116 If, alternatively, the decedent intended to repay Petitioner for building a house on the
pieViously unimpioved Paicel No 4A 4 by transferring or leaving he1 title to the property, she had
seveial yeals to do so prim to her death Yet not only did the decedent fail to t1ansfer title to the
p10p61‘ty to Petitionei duiing her lifetime or draft any testamentary instrument recompensing
Petitione1 after he1 death, but Petitioner has provided no evidence whatsoevei that the decedent
evei saw he1 daughte1 5 financial help as anything but a gift Without any evidence to the contiaiy,
thei ef01e, the Court finds it reasonable to assume that Petitione1 s expenses made over a decade 01
mom fox he1 mothei’s benefit were gratuitous in natu1e and theief01e cannot be claimed against
the decedent’s estate
3 Statute of Limitations on Claims Undel Contracts
1117 While the Couit thelefOIe finds it likely that the expenses made by Petitione1 p1i01 to the
decedent’s death we1e g1 atuitous in nature, the altemative is that they we1e made undei a cont1 act,
expiess 01 implied, upon which Petitioner relied in expectation of some f01m of 1epayment f01 he1
expendituxes on the decedent’s behalf While the total lack of any evidence 01 testimony to such
effect st1 ongly weighs against the existence of a contiact between Petitionei and the decedent the
Com“: does obsewe that the vely fact that Petitionei maintained such piecise and voluminous
1ec01ds of he1 expenses suggests that she might have expected to collect upon same at some point
in the futuie See In 1e Estate 0] McConnell, 42 VI 43 52 (Ten Ct 2000) ( The mere act of
maintaining a notebook fox the sole puipose of tracking the [checks paid by Claimant] f01 he1 sister
leads this Court to find that the intent was not g1 atuitous, but that the Claimant expected something
in ietum ) If, however, the Petitionei was under 1e1iance upon any contract made with the
decedent, her claim for pre death expenses is wholly ban ed by the statute of limitations, as shown
below
1118 Title 15, § 392 of the Virgin Islands Code provides that, [u]ntil the administration has
been completed, a claim against the estate not ban ed by the statute of limitations may be presented,
allowed, and paid out No claim shall be allowed which is baned by the statute of
limitations ” Chas H Steffey v Estate ofMaurzce Petlon Savam,
15 VI 260, 265 (V I 1978)
(quoting V 1 CODE ANN tit 15, § 395) The time for commencement of an action upon a contract
is six years V I CODE ANN tit 5, § 31(3)(A) Before deciding whether the claim is barred by
the six year statute of limitations for contracts, the date on which the claim accrued must be
determined For, it is from that date that [the] statute of limitations [begins] to run ” In re Estate
Estate of Celestina Thomas
2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Order
Page 6 of 11
ofVanderpool Super Ct Prob No 80/
2004 VI 2010 VI LEXIS 113 at *4 5 (VI Dec
30 2010)
1119 In this particular case, the calculation of whether the six year statute of limitations has
expired is easy The very last date upon which Petitioner 3 claim against the decedent for expenses
paid during her lifetime could have accrued was the date of the decedent s death June 18, 2008
Petitioner 3 original creditor s claim was not filed until August 8, 2014, nearly six years and two
months after the decedent 8 death Therefore, any claim made upon a contract between Petitioner
and the decedent before her death is automatically out of the statutory limits Further, the Court
notes that Petitioner had every opportunity to submit her claim on an earlier date; she was
appointed Administratiix of the estate on December 11, 2012 and posted the Notice to Creditms
and Debtors that same month, directing all those with claims against the estate to make said claims
known to Petitioner Yet she did not submit hei own claim until over a year and a half later
1120 The Court therefore finds that, in any ciicumstance, Petitioner is wholly baned fiom
collecting upon any claims made for expenses incuned piior t0 the decedent’s death Therefoxe,
Volume 1 of Petitionei s July 24, 2017 Revised Cieditm 5 Claim, requesting $200,757 43 in pie
death expendituies, will be denied in its entiiety and deducted fiom Petitionei’s total iequested
claim
EXPENSES INCURRED FOLLOWING THE DECEDENT S DEATH
1121 Volume 2 of Petitionei’s July 24, 2017 1evised Ciedit01’s claim, acc01ding to the
accompanying Notice of Filing, contains expendituies incuned by Petitionei “f01 building and
upkeep of decedent s 1eal propelty aftei the date of death of the decedent , totaling $ 133,552 21
Volume 2 3 exhibit list is, like that of Volume 1, divided into categOIies including utilities”
“telephone”, ‘ landscaping (yard cleaning)”, license and pennits”, ‘ supplies, mateiials and
repaiis”, “secuiity ’, “piopeity tax”, “postage , “tiavel expenses”, “professional fees ’, and
‘ advertisement” On January 29, 2021, Petitionei submitted a one page credit01’s claim, adopting
the July 24, 2017 1evised credit01 s claim theiein but adding on additional, m01e recent expenses
1°01 the construction and upkeep of Paicel No 4A 4, fm a new total claimed of $379,327 03
1 Insufficient Proof of Claim
1122 Virgin Islands caselaw dictates that claims against an estate that are not corroborated by
evidence other than a claimant's testimony will be denied Jackman v Estate osztterson 335
Fed Appx 255 256 (3d Cir 2009)‘ see eg In re Estate ofErlkson
11 VI 30 (D VI 1974) In
16 Estate ofDenms,
11 VI 18 (D V I 1974) No creditor 3 claim will be allowed by the court
except where there is some competent or satisfactory evidence other than the testimony of the
claimant Jackman at 256
1123 In this particular matter, the Court has previously directed Petitioner on this precise topic
The Court 5 November 25, 2014 Order instructed that each particular expense for which
Petitioner claims reimbursement must be identified and placed in the appropriate identifiable
Estate of Celestina Thomas
2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Order
Page 7 of 11
category, in chronological order, as Petztzoner can clazm only those expenses that have supportmg
receipts or other documents that show payment thereof by Petitioner (Emphasis added)
a January 29, 2021 Claim
1124 Despite the Court 5 explicit instruction, Petitioner has repeatedly failed to provide any
evidence for many of her claims The January 29, 2021 claim is the most glaring example of this
deficiency The claim consists primarily of a one page claim and an exhibit list, much like those
in Volumes 1 and 2 described above, showing categories of additional expenses mounted after
submission of the July 24, 2017 revised creditor s claim, totaling an additional $45,017 39 in
recent expenses However, the claim not accompanied by any evidence of Petitioner s expenses
Unlike the pieVious volumes of expenses, there was not a single receipt, invoice, etc to support
Petitioner 5 January 29, 2021 claim For lack of any evidence on which this Court might rely in
considering the claimed expendituies, the Court will deny, in its entirety, the additional $45,017 39
claimed in the January 29, 2021 claim
b Volume 2 of July 24 2017 Revised Claim
1125 Petitionei likewise failed to piovide any suppofiing evidence f01 many of the expenses
claimed in Volume 2 of hei July 24, 2017 claim As stated above, the Com had found hei two
pievious submissions of claims to be too disorganized and chaotic to considei, so it 01de1ed
Petitionei to 01ganize hei payments by date and by category Petitionei s July 24 2017 volumes
were far m01e compiehensible and 01ganized than theii piedecess01s, but upon examination, the
Comt noted that Volume 2 only included supporting documentation f01 the fiist th1ee of the eleven
categories of expenses named in its exhibit list While Exhibits B thiough D, entitled ‘utilities”,
“telephone”, and “landscaping (yaid Cleaning)”, iespectively, all have con esponding sections latei
in the volume with ielated documentation, Exhibits E thiough L have no conesponding evidence
included While the CouIt at fnst thought that theie might be a missing thiid volume, Petitionei s
Notice of Filing named and described only Volumes 1 and 2 The Court must theief01e deny all
expenses 1equested in Exhibits E thiough L as listed in Volume 2 5 exhibit list (totaling
$1 12,161 56) f01 lack of any substantiating evidence
1126 After all of the above deficiencies the Couit is left to considei only those claims made fox
expenses paid by Petitionei aftei the decedent s death and suppOIted by direct evidence This
leaves only Exhibits B, C, and D of Volume 2 of Petitioner s July 24, 2017 claim The Court will
now examine each exhibit separately
i Volume 2, Exhibit B Utilities
1127 Volume 2, Exhibit B consists solely of Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (WAPA)
bills and receipts paid by the Petitioner for Parcel No 4A 4 The first two pages of the Exhibit
include a list of dates and amounts of all bills to follow, totaling $5267 99 Upon th010ugh
examination of the included bills and receipts, the Court finds that Petitioner included duplicates
of several bills in her accounting The correct bills and amounts for which the Court can award
Petitioner compensation are as follows
Estate of Celestina Thomas 2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Order
Page 8 ofll
DATE OF BILL AMOUNT
10/18/2011 $ 80 51
11/16/2011 $ 230 85
01/18/2012 $ 130 89
06/14/2012 $ 220 78
10/15/2012 $ 146 71
09/17/2012 $ 152 44
07/17/2012 $ 132 37
09/04/2012 $ 126 85
10/14/2009 $ 29 73
05/06/2010 $ 23 74
02/16/2010 $ 37 86
03/12/2010 $ 39 77
08/17/2009 $ 28 62
05/14/2014 $ 32 60
11/16/2009 $ 38 00
09/16/2009 $ 46 49
10/15/2010 $ 48 70
01/19/2010 $ 32 42
12/14/2009 $ 37 40
01/19/2011 3 52 70
05/27/2010 $ 32 60
12/27/2012 $ 198 98
09/15/2014 $146 80
11/19/2014 $ 17522
12/15/2014 $172 29
01/23/2015 $ 102 46
02/13/2015 $ 12164
03/13/2015 $ 128 72
04/15/2016 $ 236 03
04/20/2015 $ 138 52
Estate of Celestina Thomas 2021 V1 Supex 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Order
Page 9 of 11
DATE OF BILL (Continued) AMOUNT
05/20/2015 $ 118 92
06/17/2015 $ 11147
08/03/2015 $10156
08/19/2015 $ 115 37
10/16/2015 $8181
11/20/2015 $ 89 87
01/22/2016 $ 97 07
02/17/2016 $ 70 77
04/08/2016 $ 120 52
05/20/2016 $ 27 25
06/17/2016 $ 1621
07/19/2016 $ 93 56
08/19/2016 $ 85 36
10/18/2016 $ 149 78
12/02/2016 $ 3015
12/22/2016 $ 94 43
01/25/2017 $ 75 72
03/21/2017 $ 53 68
05/05/20172 $ 93 07
TOTAL $ 4 749 26
1128 The Coult will theief01e award Petitioner a total of $4,749 26 f01 utilities paid f01 Parcel
No 4A 4 aftei the decedent s death
ii Volume 2, Exhibit C Telephone
1129 Volume 2, Exhibit C consists of invoices from Innovative telephone company The
invoices, ranging from 2009 2017, show that Petitioner was paying for a bundle package of
7 This final receipt was not included with the othe1s in its proper section but was instead seemed to the inside covei
of Volume 2 of Petitioner 5 July 24 2017 claim with a handwxitten note next to it indicating that it was to be added
to the whole The other two items taped to the same page a $950 00 invoice from an accountant for the cost of
pieparing the volumes for Petitioner and a receipt for $200 00 made out to an Eugene Peters will be Iejected f01
failure to provide any evidence showing how those expenses benefited the estate
Estate of Celestina Thomas 2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Order
Page 10 of 11
telephone, intemet, and cable television The itemization of the expenses on the first pages of the
Exhibit shows a total of $7 962 66
1130 The Court can find no reason to grant Petitioner any of the expenses requested in Exhibit
C From all of the documents submitted in this mattei since 2012, the Court finds that Parcel No
4A 4 has never been rented out or used in any way over the course of this matter, except by
Petitioner herself when she has Visited the island fiom her home in New York The home has
the1efore remained empty since at least 2008, upon the decedent 5 death
1131 While theie is some benefit in keeping services such as water and power running to an
empty property for the purpose of emergencies, inspections, etc , it can find no rationalization for
maintaining internet, television, and phone service to an unused pioperty If these superfluous
services were utilized by anyone in the past decade, it was by Petitione1 herself, as she is the only
peison auth01ized to access the property Therefore Petitionei 5 choice to maintain these services
is eithei entiiely self sewing or simply in p001 judgment In eithei case, the Court will reject the
claim fox 1epayment of these extraneous seivices in its totality
iii Volume 2, Exhibit D Landscaping
1132 Volume 2, Exhibit D consists of checks and ieceipts paid by Petitionei f01 sewices such as
“galdening’ and “yaid cleaning” between 2006 and 2008 The itemization on the fist page of the
Exhibit lists a total expense of $8,160 00 f01 all included sewices Howevei the Court finds that,
despite Petitionei ’s asseition that Volume 2 consists only of expenses post dating the decedent’s
death, many of the expenses included in Exhibit D 316 fiom befoxe the decedent’s death on June
18, 2008 The Court will thenefoxe only considei those expenses paid aftei that date and
substantiated by evidence This leaves the following appioved expenses
DATE OF BILL AMOUNT
08/26/2008 $ 250 00
08 26/2008 55 200 00
01/12/2009 $ 400 00
03/16/2009 $ 200 00
08/18/2009 $ 200 00
04/27/2010 $ 200 00
04/30/2010 $ 800 00
06/05/2010 $ 200 00
03/15/2017 $ 175 00
04/06/2017 $ 150 00
TOTAL $ 2 775 00
Estate of Celestina Thomas 2021 VI Super 17U
ST 2010 PB 00073
Order
Page 11 of 11
1133 The Court will therefore award Petitioner a total of $2,775 00 for expenses paid for
landscaping and yard cleaning work performed at Parcel No 4A 4 after the decedent 5 death
Together with the $4,749 26 awarded for utilities, this results in a total award of $7,524 26 on
Petitioner 3 claim
CONCLUSION
1134 The Court must take a final moment to emphasize the deep concerns it has with Petitioner s
overall conduct in her role as Administratrix of this estate The Petitioner has acted extraordinarily
freely with her money in making improvements to this estate, all without the Court s approval In
its November 25, 2014 Order, the Court specifically demanded that, if Petitionei is claiming
reimbursement of improvements she made to the pioperty, then she must identify the legal basis
01 authority upon which she made this impiovement without prior w1itten authority from the
Com“: (Emphasis added) Instead, Petitionei continued to pour hei money into a piopeity to
which she has, as yet, no legal title apparently anticipating that the Court would repay hei for any
and all expenditures made, howevei unwarranted
1135 In total Petitioner 5 final claim of $379,327 03 is nearly twice the value of the entiie estate,
presently valued at $206,900 00 The Court iecognizes that much of Petitioner 3 claim was likely
to the benefit of the estate and its heirs, but plenty of it was cleaily extraneous or self serving In
failing to act unbiasedly in the best inteiests of the estate, Petitioner not only stalled the
pioceedings of this case for seveial yeais with a massive and disorganized claim but also
encumbered the Court with the task of tiying to make sense of the vaiious errors and faults within
the submitted documents The end iesult is a beleagueied estate, an oveitaxed Court, and a claim
which, due to its vaiious defects, has been diamatically ieduced fiom $379,327 03 to $7,524 26
Had Petitionei heeded the diiection and 01de1s of the Court at any point in this mattei this estate
might have been brought to a close in substantially bettei ciicumstances Nevertheless, it is now
heieby
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Petitionei s January 29 2021 c1edit01 5
claim for $379,327 03 is GRANTED in pan in the amount of $7,524 26; and it is
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a copy of this Ordei shall be diiected
to the Law Offices of Pedio K Williams (Pedio K Williams, Esq ), counsel 1°01 Petitionei
DATED February {Z 2021 2 g; %
ENRY V CARR III
Magistrate Judge
Of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
ATTES I
T? k g” HARLES
C er ,0 '49 \ o
By ll!!! III
‘ f? C HOWE%E
r D puty Clerk / /202l