IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

FILED

June 02, 2023 02:35 2M
ST-2019-CV-00297
TAMARA CHARLES
CLERK OF THE COURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

LOUISE COURTNEY (owner 3808-3811),
Case No. ST-2019-CV-00297

Plaintiff,

vs. ACTION FOR BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY CONTRACT,

PINEAPPLE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM DAMAGES, INTENTIONAL

ASSOCIATION, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NEGLECT OF PROPERTY,
LISA DE ROULET, and FIONA STUART EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,

and PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Defendants.

PINEAPPLE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

ACTION FOR DEBT and
Counter-claimant, FORECLOSURE

VS.

LOUISE COURTNEY and THE LIVING TRUST dated
December 26, 2008

Counter-defendants.

Nm Nee eee flee lee eee Se”

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cite as 

qi THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff Louise Courtney’s (‘Courtney’)
Petition to Remove Defendants’ Legal Representative (“Petition’’), filed on or about February 10,
2022. Also before the Court is Defendants Pineapple Village Condominium Association, Inc.

Board of Directors, Lisa De Roulet, and Fiona Stuart’s (collectively, “PVCA”) Opposition to
Courtney v. PVCA Bad. of Dirs., Lisa De Roulet, and Fiona Stuart Cite as 

Case No. ST-2019-CV-00297

Memorandum Opinion — Petition to Remove Defendants’ Counsel
Page 2 of 6

Petition (“Opposition”), filed on February 24, 2022.' For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition
will be denied.
BACKGROUND FACTS

qj2 Defendant Pineapple Village Condominium Association, Inc. (“Pineapple Village”), is a
USVI corporation operating the Pineapple Village Condominium property in St. Thomas, USVI.
Courtney is the owner of a condominium unit within that property, and she brought this action,
pro se, arguing that PVCA failed to repair a leak from the condominium building’s roof, which
caused damage to Courtney’s unit. To defend this matter, PVCA retained the firm Kellerhals
Ferguson Kroblin, PLLC (“Kellerhals”).” Pineapple Village then filed a counterclaim against
Courtney and The Living Trust dated December 26, 2008, for debt and foreclosure of a
condominium lien. Specifically, Pineapple Village alleges that Courtney owes Pineapple Village
several years’ worth of common charges, which, as of the date of the counterclaim, totaled nineteen
thousand eight hundred fifty-nine dollars and eighty-six cents ($19,859.86).

DISCUSSION

q3 Courtney now petitions this Court to disqualify attorney Shari N. D’Andrade, Esq.
(“D’Andrade”) and Kellerhals from representing PVCA, arguing there is a conflict of interest.
Courtney asserts that there is a violation of “atty. professional conduct” because “[a]n atty. cannot

receive payment to litigate against the person the atty. is representing.” In other words, Courtney

The Court acknowledges that other motions are pending. However, this motion for disqualification has priority.
Moran v. People, 76 VI. 544, 550 (V.I. 2022) (holding motions to disqualify judges and attorneys should receive
priority consideration and be resolved prior to rulings on substantive motions).

* Three attorneys from the Kellerhals firm have entered appearances on behalf of PVCA: Shari N. D’ Andrade, Esq.,
Christopher Allen Kroblin, Esq., and Marjorie Whalen, Esq.

3 The Court will refer to D’ Andrade and Kellerhals collectively as Kellerhals.
Courtney v. PVCA Bad. of Dirs., Lisa De Roulet, and Fiona Stuart Cite as 

Case No. ST-2019-CV-00297

Memorandum Opinion — Petition to Remove Defendants’ Counsel

Page 3 of 6

contends that her dues cannot be used by PVCA to pay for Kellerhals’ legal representation in an
action against Courtney.

q4 PVCA opposes the Petition because, like any other condominium association, it pays for
its legal representation with an aggregate of the association dues and assessments collected from
all unit owners. PVCA argues that if the Court were to disqualify Kellerhals, PVCA would be
deprived of any legal representation because any lawyer PVCA seeks to retain would be paid with
funds from dues, common charges, and assessments. PVCA also rejects Courtney’s argument that
there is a conflict of interest because Courtney has not paid dues for several years, implying that
her money is not part of the funds that were used to retain Kellerhals.

Legal Standard

q5 In the Virgin Islands, the Court is responsible for supervising the conduct of attorneys and,
under its discretion, is authorized to disqualify counsel. Todman v. Johnson, 

; Farrell v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands, 57 V.1. 50, 57 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2012). Though, since it is a
drastic measure that deprives a party of its counsel of choice, the party seeking disqualification
- carries a heavy burden to show that continued representation would be impermissible. Hamed v.
Yusuf, 

, 224 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2018); Todman, §8. And that burden is simply not met
with vague or unsupported allegations. Caribbean Off the Grid Plaza, LLC v. Pedram, 

 (quoting Fenster v. Dechabert, Super. Ct. Civ. No. SX-16-CV-343, 

, at *2 (V.I. Super. Ct. September 27, 2017) (unpublished)).

q6 When contemplating whether counsel should be disqualified, the Court applies a two-part
test, considering first whether there was a substantive violation of the Rules of Professional

Conduct; then, if a violation is found, the second part involves balancing factors to determine
Courtney v. PVCA Bad. of Dirs., Lisa De Roulet, and Fiona Stuart Cite as 

Case No. ST-2019-CV-00297

Memorandum Opinion — Petition to Remove Defendants’ Counsel

Page 4 of 6

whether disqualification is appropriate. Todman, {9 (citing to Caribbean Off the Grid, 422 and
Fenster, 

, at *6). Although Courtney does not cite which Rule has been violated,
the Court finds that Rules 211.1.7 and 211.1.9, which address conflicts of interest with current and
former clients, respectively, are the most applicable.

q7 Virgin Islands Supreme Court Rule 211.1.7. provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a
client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest . . . [which] exists if. . . there
is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the
lawyer’s responsibilities to ...athird person....” And Rule 211.1.9 provides that a lawyer who
has previously represented a client in a matter cannot represent another person whose interests are
materially adverse to the lawyer’s former client without written consent. A lawyer is responsible
to third persons if they have a fiduciary duty to that person, such as “from a lawyer’s service as a
trustee, executor or corporate director.” Model Rules of Prof] Conduct r. 1.7 cmt. 9 (Am. Bar
Ass’n 2019).4

qs When an organization retains a lawyer, that lawyer’s duty is only to “represent[] the
organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.” V.I. S. Ct. R. 211.1.13. Subject to
the provisions of Rule 211.1.7, a lawyer “‘may also represent any of [an organization’s] directors,
officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents... .” V.I. S. Ct. R. 211.1.13(g);
Model Rules of Prof?1 Conduct r. 1.3 cmt. 1 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2019) (explaining that constituents
are those in “positions equivalent to officers, directors, employees and shareholders held by

persons acting for the organizational client that are not corporations”).

* Virgin Islands Supreme Court Rule 203 delineates that not only does Rule 211 govern the conduct of lawyers in the
USVI, but the ABA Interpretive Guidelines, Comments, and Committee Comments can be applicable as well. VI. S.
Ct. R. 203 (a).
Courtney v. PVCA Bad. of Dirs., Lisa De Roulet, and Fiona Stuart Cite as 

Case No. ST-2019-CV-00297

Memorandum Opinion — Petition to Remove Defendants’ Counsel

Page 5 of 6

Analysis

q9 Courtney does not assert that she contacted Kellerhals to represent her, nor does Courtney
claim to be a former client. And Courtney does not contend that she personally retained or paid
Kellerhals directly to represent PVCA.° Rather, Kellerhals was retained by funds from a collection
of dues and common charges from all owners of units within Pineapple Village, which is not
prohibited by the laws of the Virgin Islands or the Rules of Professional Conduct. Thus, there is
no risk that Kellerhals’ representation of PVCA will be materially limited by any responsibility to
Courtney.

q10 Further, Pineapple Village, as an organization, has the right to retain a counsel of its
choosing. And, as our Rules specify, the lawyer retained for the organization represents the
organization itself and not the constituents who act for it, unless the lawyer also formed a lawyer-
client relationship with a constituent. V.I. S. Ct. R. 211.1.13(g). Besides owning a condominium
unit, Courtney is not otherwise associated with PVCA, as Courtney is not a director or officer of
Pineapple Village. Nor has Courtney ever formed a lawyer-client relationship with Kellerhals.®
qii = In all, Courtney fails to demonstrate that Kellerhals’ representation of PVCA is

impermissible. Courtney has not met the burden of demonstrating that Kellerhals’ representation

> Indeed, a lawyer should not accept compensation from anyone but “the client unless: (1) the client gives informed
consent; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer
relationship; and (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 211.1.6.” V.I.
S. Ct. R. 211.1.8.

° See Restatement (Third) of the Law: The Law Governing Lawyers § 14 (Am. Law Inst. 2000) (stating that an

attorney-client relationship “arises when[] a person manifests to a lawyer the person’s intent that the lawyer provide
legal services for the person’).
Courtney v. PVCA Bad. of Dirs., Lisa De Roulet, and Fiona Stuart Cite as 

Case No. ST-2019-CV-00297

Memorandum Opinion — Petition to Remove Defendants’ Counsel
Page 6 of 6

of PVCA creates a conflict of interest.’ The Court does not find that there has been any violation

of the Rules of Professional Conduct, so the Petition will be denied.

CONCLUSION

412 Courtney’s attempt to remove Kellerhals as counsel for PVCA fails because the Court does
not find a conflict of interest that prohibits Kellerhals from representing PVCA, as Pineapple
Village is permitted to use funds it has collected from its dues to retain counsel of its choice, even
if the funds are used to sue a condominium unit owner. Therefore, the Court will deny Courtney’s

Petition to remove Kellerhals as PVCA’s counsel. An order consistent herewith will immediately

follow.
- Lys oJ Z- 2— AQVIG 27 f
DATED: June oD. , 2023 L OG et tee ee
Kathleen Mackay
Judge of the Superior Court
of the Virgin Islands

g

ATTEST:

TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk o Court
BY: Wn ‘ WN )AAC—__.

DONNA DONOVAN
Couft Clerk Supervisor (o ja / ROALD

7In addition, during a recent status conference, Courtney asserted that D’ Andrade lives off-island and has never visited
Pineapple Village, and thus it is unethical for D’ Andrade to represent PVCA. While the Court has no information on
the veracity of those claims, even if true, those factors would not make it unethical for D’ Andrade to represent PVCA.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN

LOUISE COURTNEY (owner 3808-3811),
CASE NO. ST-2019-CV-00297

Vv.

LOUISE T. COURTNEY and THE LIVING
TRUST dated December 26, 2008,

Counter-defendants.

)
)
Plaintiff, )
) ACTION FOR BREACH OF
V. ) FIDUCIARY CONTRACT,
) DAMAGES, INTENTIONAL
PINEAPPLE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ) NEGLECT OF PROPERTY,
ASSOCIATION, INC. BOARD OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
DIRECTORS, LISA DE ROULET, and ) AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
FIONA STUART, )
)
Defendants. )
)
PINEAPPLE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM )
ASSOCIATION, INC. BOARD OF ) ACTION FOR DEBT &
DIRECTORS, ) FORECLOSURE
)
Counterclaimant )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Louise Courtney’s (“Courtney”)
Petition to Remove Defendants’ Legal Representative (“Petition”), filed on or about February
10, 2022. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this day, it is hereby

ORDERED that Courtney’s Petition is DENIED; and it is further
Louise Courtney v. Pineapple Village Condominium Association, Inc. et al.
Case No. ST-2019-CV-00297

Order (denying Petition to Remove Defendants’ Legal Representative)
Page 2

ORDERED that copies of this Order and the Memorandum Opinion shall be directed

to counsel of record and Louise Courtney.

= oT ZZ Z2peler (

F
Dated: June a , 2023

Kathleen Mackay
Judge of the Superior Court
of the Virgin Islands
ATTEST:
TAMARA CHARLES

Clerk of the Court

TONE DONOVAN

. Court Clerk Supervisor i A / AOXS

y