For Publication
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
EUPHITA O HACKETT ) S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
Appellant/Defendant ) Re Super Ct Civ No 538 2002 (STX)
)
V )
)
HARRIETT L SASSO )
Appellee/Plaintiff )
)
On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St Croix
Superior Court Judge Hon Douglas A Brady
Considered June 14, 2022
Filed May 6 2024
Cite as 2024 VI 21
BEFORE MARIA M CABRET Associate Justice IVE ARLINGTON SWAN
Associate Justice, and RENEE GUMBS CARTY, Designated Justice '
APPEARANCES
Yvette Ross Edwards, Esq 2
Law Offices of Yvette D Ross Edwards
St Croix U S V I
A ttorneyfin Appellam
Mark L Milligan, Esq
Law Offices of Mark Milligan
St Croix U S V I
A Itorney for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
‘ ChiefJustice Rhys S Hodge has recused himself from this matter The Honorable Renee Gumbs Carty sits in his
place by designation pursuant to title 4 subsection 24(a) of the Virgin Islands Code
7 Judge Yvette Ross Edwards was elevated to the bench and confirmed as a Judge in the Superior Court of the
Virgin Islands before the full senate on June 14 2023 Judge Ross Edwards was sworn in on August l4 2023
Attorney Kye Walker was substituted as counsel for the Appellant on July .>l 2023
Hackett v Sasso 2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 2 of 9
CABRET, Associate Justice
f1 Appellant Euphita Hackett appeals the Superior Court 5 April 8 2020 amended judgment
order entering judgment in favor of Appellee Harriett Sasso and ordering Hackett to reimburse
Sasso for the property taxes Sasso paid on a plot of land designated as Plot 5 U, Estate Upper
Love Prince Quarter, Frederiksted, St Croix ( Plot 5 U ’) For the following reasons, we affirm
the judgment of the Superior Court
I BACKGROUND
$12 In 1972, Hackett purchased land known as Plot 5 T, Estate Upper Love, Prince Quarter,
Frederiksted St Croix ( Plot 5 T”) with her now deceased husband The following year Hackett
began constructing a family home on what she thought was Plot 5 T, but in reality Hackett had
mistakenly begun construction on Plot 5 U, the adjacent lot Hackett completed construction of
the home in 1980 and has resided 0n Plot 5 U since the home’s completion In 1998, Sasso was
devised Plot 5 U by an adjudication in the probate of Josephine Blackwell’s estate 3 During the
course of probate, Sasso had Plot S U surveyed, revealing Hackett’s residence on the property
Despite Sasso obtaining title to Plot 5 U in 1998, neither she nor any of her predecessors ever
questioned Hackett’s possession or occupancy of Plot 5 U for well over fifteen years While Sasso
purportedly notified Hackett in late 1997 or 1998 that she was wrongfully residing on Plot 5 U
Hackett continued residing on Plot 5 U and Sasso and her predecessors continued to pay the
property taxes on Plot 5 U 4
3 Blackwell was the sole owner of Plot 5 U prior to Sasso
" While receipts of Sasso 5 property tax payments are not contained in the record we defer to the Superior Court 5
reasoning that Sasso and her predecessors paid property taxes on Plot 5 U for several years which payments have
redounded to the benefit of Hackett
Hacket! v Sasso 2024 VI 21
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 3 of 9
113 In 2002, Sasso initiated a quiet title action in the Superior Court in order to determine
ownership of Plots 5 U and 5 T Hackett answered Sasso s complaint, raising adverse possession
as an affirmative defense and later amended her answer to include a counterclaim for adverse
possession Hackett then moved for summary judgment as to her ownership of Plot 5 U by adverse
possession In 2004, the Superior Court determined that Hackett had satisfied all adverse
possession statutory requirements and awarded her ownership of Plot 5 U Sasso appealed the
Superior Court’s 2004 memorandum opinion and order to the Appellate Division of the District
Court of the Virgin Islands (‘Appellate Division”) 5 In 2006 the Appellate Division affirmed the
Superior Court’s decision that Hackett became the owner of Plot 5 U by adverse possession but
remanded the case with the limiting instructions to ‘clarify the precise property affected and to do
equity The Appellate Division specifically instructed that ‘the [Superior Court] should determine
whether it is fair for Sasso to take nothing given her payment of property taxes on Plot 5 T and
for Hackett to take both Plots 5 U and 5 T
114 On April 8, 2020, the Superior Court entered an amended judgment and memorandum
opinion resolving the questions presented for remand In its opinion, the Superior Court denied
awarding Sasso an equitable conveyance of Plot 5 T because [t]o 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 Nevertheless, the Superior Court found that
the interests of equity supported reimbursing Sasso for the property taxes she paid on Plot 5 U
5 ‘The Supreme Court [of the Virgin Islands] officially assumed appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the
Superior Court on January 29 2007 thus ‘the Appellate Division’s appellate jurisdiction over Superior Court
decisions is limited to appeals filed prior to January 29 2007 Hypollre v People 51 V l 97 l0l (V l 2009)
Sasso filed her appeal on June 25 2004 from the Superior Court 5 June 24 2004 decision therefore the Appellate
Division was the designated appellate court for the Territory at the time of her appeal See Richards v People 74
V! 539 >4.)(V1202l)
Hacker! v 90550 2024 V1 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion ofthe Court
Page 4 of9
because these payments “redounded to the benefit of Hackett ” The Superior Court also imposed
pre and post judgment interest on the recovery of this reimbursement Hackett timely filed this
appeal on May 8 2020 6
ll JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
1|5 This Court [has] jurisdiction over all appeals arising from final judgments final decrees
or final orders of the Superior Court or as otherwise p1 ovided by law " V 1 CODE ANN tit 4 §
32(a) Pelle v Cerium Underwriters at Lloyds of London 66 V I 315 318 (V I 2017) A final
order conclusively adjudicates all disputes between the parties ends the litigation on the merits
and leaves nothing to do but execute the judgment See Guardian Ins Co v nght, 75 V I 345,
349 (V I 2021) see also In re Joseph 65 V I 217 222 (V I 2016) Because the Superior Court 5
April 8 2020 amended judgment and order conclusively adjudicated all disputes between the
parties, it is a final order within the meaning of 4 V I C § 32(a) ” Bralhwculc v Xavier 71 V I
1089 1095 (V 1 2019)
1|6 [This Court’s] standard of review in examining the Superior Court's application of law is
plenary while findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error ” Alexandel v Alexander , 65 V l
572 377 (V I 2016) (citing Santiago v V] Housing Auih 57 V l 256 263 (V l 2012)) This
Court also retains plenary power to determine whether the Superior Court stayed within the scope
of a reviewing court’s mandate See Caribbean Healthways Inc v James, 59 V l 805 810 (V I
2013) The Superior Court 5 decision to grant or deny equitable remedies is reviewed for abuse of
6 Sasso filed a Notice of Appeal on May 6 2020 however this Court dismissed her appeal on April 22 2022 after
failing to timely submit her appellate brief by the April 28 2021 deadline extended by this Court 5 amended
scheduling order Sasso also failed to file a response brief to this appeal
Hacket! v 9asso 2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 5 of 9
discretion See Sam 5 Food Dzsmbs Inc v NNA&0 LLC 73 V I 453 459 (V I 2020) see also
VI Tau Ass'n v V] Port Auth , 67 V I 643 661 (V I 2017) An abuse of discretion involves a
finding of clearly erroneous fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to
fact Suldv Lam Off ofKarmA Bentz P C 75 V I 272 276 77 (V I 2021)
III DISCUSSION
A Scope of Remand
117 Hackett contends that the Appellate Division intended to limit the scope of remand to the
equities concerning property tax payments on Plot 5 T, and not Plot 5 U Hackett specifically
argues the Superior Court erred when it wrongfully exceeded the scope of remand, and in so
doing erroneously concluded that Sasso should be reimbursed property taxes for a plot which the
Appellate Division excluded from consideration of the equities ” We disagree
‘18 Generally issues outside the scope of the remand are not available for consideration ’
Raw 11m v People 59 V I 1069 1072 (V I 2013) (quoting Untied SIGIES‘l Walterman 408 F 3d
1084 1085 86 (8th Cir 2005)) Williams v People 58 V I 341 354 55 (VI 2013) (the Superior
Court 5 amended judgment was vacated for failing to follow instructions on remand), Caribbean
Healrhu ays, 59 V I at 812 (the Superior Court’s failure to follow a mandate on remand required
revelsal)
119 Here the Appellate Division instructed as follows
[A]lthough we conclude the [Superior Court] did not err in determining that
Hackett became the adverse owner of certain property, we must remand this
matter with instructions to clarify the precise property affected and to do equity
In considering the equities of the case, the trial court should determine whether it
is fair for Sasso to take nothing given her payment of taxes on Plot 5 T, and for
Hackett to take both Plots 5 U and 5 T
Hacker! v Sasso 2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 6 of 9
[W]e will remand this matter to the [Superior Court] to identify or designate the
precise area of property affected and the equities of permitting Hackett to take
possession of both Plots 5 U and 5 T while Sasso takes nothing
In addressing the Appellate Division’s mandate, the Superior Court explained that ‘ the Appellate
Division 5 Memorandum Opinion incorrectly states that Sasso paid property taxes on Plot 5 T’
while [t]he record reflects that Sasso and her predecessors actually paid real property tax
bills for Plot 5 U Despite the Appellate Division 3 statement that Sasso paid property taxes
on Plot 5 T, we conclude this statement was a single typographical error as the Appellate Division
correctly referred to Plot 5 U, or the property of the Josephine Blackwell estate, throughout its
opinion Because Sasso paid property taxes on Plot 5 U, rather than Plot 5 T, it makes little sense
that the Appellate Division intentionally referred to Sasso’s property tax payments on Plot 5 T
when in fact she never paid any property taxes for Plot 5 T
$110 Moreover, the instructions of the Appellate Division expressly refer to both Plot 5 U and
Plot 5 T The Appellate Division did not limit its mandate of equitable considerations to only one
plot Rather the mandate granted the Superior Court broad discretion to consider the equities as
they pertained to both plots and the parties in its April 8 2020, amended judgment order, the
Superior ( outt clearly stayed within the Appellate Division 3 mandate by acknowledging the
limited scope of remand and only deciding issues of equity This is supported by the fact that the
Superior (curt denied revisiting the merits 0t Hackett s adverse possession claim at Sasso 5
request because the record was remanded for limited purposes ’ (See April 8 2020, Memorandum
Opinion ' 8) Therefore, Hackett s argument which hinges upon the Appellate Division 5 singular
incorrect reference to the wrong plot, is unavailing against the backdrop of the entirety of the
record reflecting Sasso’s Plot 5 l property tax payments This Court finds that the Superior Court
remained within the Appellate Division 5 mandate
Hacker! \ 9asso 2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 7 of 9
B Reimbursement of Property Taxes
11] 1 Next, Hackett argues that Sasso is not entitled to an equitable reimbursement for property
taxes she paid on Plot 5 U Hackett asserts that the reimbursement of Plot 5 U property taxes for
a period when Sasso and her predecessors were legally obligated to pay conferred no benefit on
Hackett and penalized Hackett by creating a windfall for Sasso We disagree
1112 [T]he Superior Court of the Virgin Islands like almost all modern American courts
exercises both equitable and legal authority ” 3R( & ( 0 v Boynes Trucking Sys 63 V I 544 553
(V I 2015) When exercising its equitable authority, the Superior Court has the power to fashion
any remedy deemed necessary and appropriate to do justice in [a] particular case ” Id (quoting
Kalloo v Estate of Small 62 V I 571 584 (V I 2015)) (emphasis added) For this reason the
Superior Court has a great deal more flexibility in considering equitable remedies than it does in
considering legal remedies ” 3RC & ( o , 63 V I at 553 That being said, equitable remedies are
inappropriate where a legal remedy is available ’° ( accmmam & Rove; Corp v Banco Populw
de P R 61 V I 247, 252 (V I 2014) This is because courts of equity were developed to provide
relief that was unavailable in courts of law ” 3R( & ( o , 63 V I at 553 [T]he division between
law and equity remains meaningful to defining the remedies available in a particular action [(1
1113 In the instant case the Superior Court was instructed to ‘do equity’ as it pertained to the
plots involved here, and the parties These instructions coupled with the Superior Court 3 bioad
equitable authority, allowed the Superior Court to fashion almost any remedy it deemed
appropriate to achieve justice Here, the Superior Court determined that justice would be best
served by awarding Sasso an equitable reimbursement for the taxes she paid on Plot 5 U and we
agiee with that assessment
Hackett v Sasso 2024 VI 2|
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0029
Opinion of the Court
Page 8 of 9
1114 First, the Superior Court was acting as a court of equity on remand, not a court of law As
stated above, courts of law and counts of equity are meaningfully distinct, and are governed by
different principles The primary function of the Superior Court acting in its equitable capacity is
to determine what is fair considering the circumstances Here, Sasso was the titleholder of Plot 5
U from 1998 until 2004 when the Superior Court awarded Hackett ownership of the property
through adverse possession Thus, during that time period, Hackett would have been obligated to
pay the property taxes on Plot 5 L yet Sasso and her predecessors had already paid them
Therefore the Superior Court determined that a reimbursement of the funds expended for property
taxes would best compensate Sasso In adherence to the Appellate Division’s mandate to not
disturb Hackett s adverse possession award on remand, the Superior Court, within its broad
discretion, fashioned an equitable remedy to reimburse the property taxes paid by Sasso
fill) Nor does the Superior Court’s decision requiring Hackett to reimbulse Sasso result in a
windfall for Sasso Here, Hackett had been residing on Plot 5 U since 1980 and obtained
ownership of Plot 5 U by adverse possession in 2004 Yet never paid any property taxes on Plot 5
U Hackett, despite knowing that Sasso was the true devisee of Plot 5 U, continued to allow Sasso
and 1m predecessors to pay the Plot 5 U property taxes (1' e for the years 1988 1991 1992 1994,
1998 1999 and 2001) Therefore, it is entirely fair and equitable that Hackett must reimbulse
Sasso f0] property taxes Sasso paid on the land Hackett now owns
IV CONCLUSION
1116 The Superior Court remained within the scope of the Appellate Division’s mandate by
clarifying that Plot 5 U was the disputed property and determining that a reimbursement tor
p10peny taxes paid by Sasso would achieve the most equitable result Because the Superior Court
Hacker! v Sasso 2024 VI 2]
S Ct Civ No 2020 0029
Opinion ofthe Court
Page 9 of 9
weighed the interests, actions, and equities of both parties to reach a fair result it did not abuse its
disc1eti0n in awarding Sasso an equitable reimbursement for the property taxes paid We therefore
affirm the Superior Court’s April 8, 2020 amended judgment order
Dated this 6th day of May, 2024
BY THE COURT
Q a
,/ x mm “
MA A M CAB 4 T ‘
Ass I ciate Justi
ATTEST C
VERONICA J HANDY ESQ
Clerk of the Court
By Isl Reisha Corneiro
Deputy Clerk
Dated May 6, 2024