SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
ST CROIX FINANCIAL CENTER INC Civil No SX 18 CV 283
PLAINTIFF ACTION FOR FRAUD BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND DEBT
V.
JACKSTAR INC AND JEFF LACROIX ; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS ’ CITE AS 2022 VI SUPER 40
Appearances
Lisa Michelle Komives, Esq
Dudley Newman Feuerzeig LLP
St Thomas, U 8 Virgin Islands
For Plamttfl
Jeff LaCroix
Pro Se'
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
‘][ 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff St Croix Financial Center Inc 5
(hereinafter Plaintiff ) renewed motion for summary judgment filed on July 9 202] As of the
date of this Memorandum Opinion, no opposition has been filed in response
' At the March 10 2022 hearing the Court granted Dwayne Henry Esq 5 March 4 2020 motion to be relieved as
counsel See mfia tootnote 4 Thus Detendant left LaCroix is proceeding in this matter as a pro se litigant Detendant
Jackstar Inc on the other hand is a corporation and not a natural person so it cannot adopt pro se status and proceed
as a pro se litigant See Lettsome 1 VI Sea Tia": 52 V I 109 I 12 (V I Super Ct Aug 7 2009)
( Generally corporations who are parties in civil litigation must be represented by attorneys ) Additionally
Detendant Jett LaCroix is not licensed to practice law in the U S Virgin Islands he cannot appear in this matter on
behalf of Detendant Jackstar Inc See Title 4 V l C § 443(a) ( the unauthorized practice of law shall be deemed to
mean the doing of any act by a person who is not a member in good standing of the Virgin Islands Bar Association
tor another person usually done by attorneys at law in the course of their profession and shall include but not be
limited to the appearance acting as the attorney at law or representative of [a] corporation before any court )
S! Cram Financml Center Inc v Jackstar Inc era!
SX 18 CV 28?
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 2 0f 17
BACKGROUND2
‘l[ 2 On August 6 2018 Plaintiff filed a verified complaint against Defendant Jackstar, Inc
(hereinafter Jackstar ) and Defendant Jeff LaCroix (hereinafter LaCroix and together with
Defendant Jackstar “Defendants ) in connection with a lease agreement and a personal guaranty
for the building located at Parcel No 2 of Estate Southgate St Croix U S Virgin Islands
(hereinafter “Leased Premises ) [n the verified complaint Plaintiff alleged the following counts
Count I breach of contract (against Defendant Jackstar) Count II debt (against Defendant
LaCroix), and Count III fraud (against Defendant LaCroix)" Plaintiff requested the following
’ Because the background was recounted in substantial detail in the memorandum opinion and order entered on
December 5 202l the Court will only briefly recount the relevant background here
‘ In its complaint Plaintitt alleged
COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT
28 Jackstar entered into a Lease contract with SCFC Lomprising the Lease Agreement and the First
Amendment to Lease
29 Jaekstar breached the terms 01 the underlying Lease contract by among other things tailing to pay rent
and other amounts due to SCFC
30 SCFC was damaged by Jackstar s breaches oi the Lease in the amount of $186,268 72 plus attorneys
lees incurred as a result of the breaches
COUNT II DEBT
32 Jackstar owes SCFC under the Lease ol $186 268 72 plus attorneys fees
‘4? Under the Guaranty LaCroix is the guarantor 0t Jackstar s obligations under the Lease
‘44 Jackstar has failed to pay SCFC the amounts due under the Lease
‘45 As a result 01 Jackstar s tailure to pay LaCroix is obligated as Guarantor to pay SCFC the amounts owud
under the Lease
COUNT III FRAUD
37 LaCroix made numerous representations to SCFC that he. and Jackstar would tutti]! their obligations
under the Lease
38 LaCroix intentionally made the representations with the knowledge that they were lalse and intended
that SCFC rely on them and refrain from taking legal action against him and Jackstar
19 LaCroix had no intention 0t complying with his obligations under the Lease
40 in reliance on LaCroix s representations SCFC retrained from taking legal action against the Defendants
to enforce the Lease or otherwise to protect its interests
41 SCFC has information that justifies the beliel that LaCroix has the financial wherewithal. through other
business dealings to pay for Jackstar s Lease obligations but is using the time he has gained through his
misrepresentations to transfer those funds or otherwise deplete them so that they cannot be seized or used to
lulfill ajudgment against Jackstar or him for the obligations under the Lease
St Clan" Futanc‘tal Cenrei Inc i Jackstar Inc era!
8X 18 CV 28%
Memorandum Opinion 2022 V] SUPER 40
Page 3 01 17
relief (1) $145 190 84 in unpaid rent additional rent utilities and other charges (ii) $26 135 98 in
interest on all unpaid amounts including accrual through the date of judgment (iii) $14 941 90 in
late fees for unpaid amounts, including accrual through the date ofjudgment (iv) reasonable costs
and attorney 5 fees from April 30 2019 through the date judgment is rendered (v) pre judgment
and post judgment interest on all amounts awarded; and (vi) all other and further legal and
equitable relief appropriate in the premises
‘][ 3 Thereafter Dwayne Henry Esq filed a notice of appearance for Defendants and filed an
answer in response to Plaintiff s verified complaint
‘I[ 4 Subsequently the patties proceeded with the discovery process On June 21 2019 Plaintiff
propounded inter alia Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to Defendant Jackstar and
Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to Defendant LaCroix
‘l[ 5 On July 9 2021 Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for summary judgment
‘{I 6 On December S 2021 the Court entered a memorandum opinion and order (hereinafter
December 5 2021 Order ) whereby the Court ordered inter alla, that (1) within twenty (20)
days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order Plaintiff shall SERVE
a copy of its July 9, 2021 renewed motion for summaryjudgment on Defendants with the method
of service in compliance with the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure and FILE THE
PROOFS OF SERVICE thereto (ii) within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order Dwayne Henry Esq shall SERVE a copy of the July 6
42 As a result of its forbearance trom enforcing its rights under the Lease in reliance on LaCroix 5 false
representations SCFC suffered damages including the inability to lease the Property to another tenant the
inability to collect on a judgment against LaCroix caused by the transter or depletion of LaCroix s funds that
would otherwise be available to satisfy ajudgment in this action
(Compl )
St 001x Financial Center Inc v Jackstar Inc etal
8X 18 CV 28%
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 4 0f 17
2020 order and a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Defendants with the method
of service in compliance with the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure and FILE THE
PROOFS OF SERVICE thereto [and] Dwayne Henry Esq 5 March 4 2020 motion to be
relieved as counsel for defendants is GRANTED UPON F[LING PROOF OF SERVICE for
the aforementioned documents [and] u]ntil Dwayne Henry Esq files the proof of service for the
aforementioned documents Dwayne Henry, Esq remains the counsel of record for Defendants
unless Defendants advises the Court that they retained new counsel 4 and (iii) within forty five
(45) days from the date of service of a copy of the July 6, 2020 order, a copy of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order, and a copy of July 9, 2021 renewed motion for summary
judgment, whichever date is later Defendants MAY file a response or retain new counsel to file
a response on their behalf to Plaintiff’s July 9 2021 renewed motion for summary judgment [and]
[t]he parties are notified that the Court will rule on Plaintiff’s July 9 2021 renewed motion for
summary judgment with or without a response from Defendants unless the circumstances then
require otherwise (Dec 5 2021 Order) (emphasis in original )
4 On March 4, 2020 Dwayne Henry Esq tiled a motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendants
On July 6 2020 the Court entered an order whereby the Court ordered that that Dwayne Henry Esq s motion to be
relieved as counsel for defendants is GRANTED upon tiling proof 01 service that this matter shall be stayed for a
period 0t tony five (45) days to allow Defendants an opportunity to retain new counsel and so advise the Court by
filing a notice and that Dwyane Henry Esq serve a copy 0t this Order on detendants and tile proot 0| service of
same with the Court within twenty (20) days (July 6 2020 Order) (emphasis in original )
In the December 5 2021 Order the Court explained
The record does not reflect that the proofs 0t service tor Defendants were ever tiled by Dwayne Henry Esq
as ordered by the July 6 2020 order Thus Dwayne Henry Esq 5 March 4 2020 motion to be relieved as
counsel was never granted See July 6 2020 order( Dwayne Henry Esq s motion to be relieved as counsel
tor defendants is GRANTED upon filing proof 0t service ) As such as of the date oi this Order Dwayne
Henry Esq is still the counsel of record tor Detendants
(Dec 5 2021 Order ‘II 23 )
Sr CwntFmancml Center Inc v Jackstar Inc eta!
SX 18 CV 28%
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 5 of 17
‘l[ 7 On December 28 2021, Plaintiff filed an informational notice advising the Court that a
copy of its July 9, 2021 renewed motion for summary judgment was served upon Defendants in
compliance with the December 5 2021 Order
‘1[ 8 On March 10 2022 this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing Lisa
Komives Esq appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Dwayne Henry Esq appeared on behalf of
Defendants At the hearing, Dwayne Henry Esq advised the Court that he has not had any
communication with Defendants for a couple of years Lisa Komives Esq advised the Court that
she was able to serve a copy of Plaintiff 5 July 9 2021 renewed motion for summary judgment
upon Defendants in compliance with the December 5 2021 Order After some inquiry regarding
Dwayne Henry, Esq 5 attempts to contact Defendants the Court found that Defendants were
evading service and granted Dwayne Henry Esq 5 March 4, 2020 motion to be relieved as
counsel
(ll 9 As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, Defendants have not filed anything in
response to Plaintiff’s July 9 2021 renewed motion for summary judgment
STANDARD OF REVIEW
*1] 10 Rule 56 of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 56’ ) governs motions
for summary judgment and sets forth the procedures thereto Under Rule 56, ‘ [a] party may move
for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense or the part of each claim or defense
on which summary judgment is sought and [t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as amatter of law VI R Clv P 56 see also R)merv Kmart Corp 68 VI 571 575
(V I 2018) ( A summary judgment movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the movant
can demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact in the record ) ‘A factual dispute
St CrattFinancial Center Inc 1 lackstal Inc eta!
SX l8 CV 283
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 6 0f 17
is deemed genuine if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party[ I and a fact is material only where it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law[] Todman v HleS 70 V I 430 436 (V I Super Ct April 17
2019)(quoting Williams v Umted Corp 50 V I l9l 194 (V I 2008)) The reviewing court must
view all inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and take
the nonmoving party 5 conflicting allegations as true if properly supported Kennedy Fundmg Inc
V CB Properties Ltd
2020 VI 5 ‘iII4 (VI 2020) The movant may discharge this burden
simply by pointing out to the court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving
party's case Id (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) Once the moving party meets this
burden the non moving party then has the burden of set[ting] out specific facts showing a genuine
issue for trial Id (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) The non moving patty “may
not rest upon mere allegations [but] must present actual evidence showing a genuine issue for
trial Rymer 68 VI at 576 (quoting Williams v United Corp
50 VI 191 194 (VI 2008))
Such evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the mere possibility that something occurred
in a particular way is not enough as a matter of law for a jury to find it probably happened that
way Kennedy
2020 VI 5, ‘1[l4 Moreover, the court should not weigh the evidence make
credibility determinations or draw legitimate inferences from the facts when ruling upon
summary judgment motions because these are the functions of the jury Todman 70 V I at 437
(quoting Williams
50 VI at 197) see Kennedy 2020 V I 5 ‘][14 see also Rymer 68 VI at 577
( When considering a summary judgment motion a trial judge may not weigh the credibility of
evidence or witnesses ) In deciding a motion for summary judgment the court 5 role is not to
determine the truth but rather to determine whether a factual dispute exists that warrants trial on
the merits Todman 70 V I at 437 (citations omitted) see Kennedy 2020 V I 5 ‘|[14 (noting that
St Crow FmanualCmm Inc 1 Jackstar [m era]
SX 18 CV 283
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 7 of 17
the court “decide only whether there is a genuine issue for trial such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the non moving party ) Accordingly, if a credibility determination is
necessary as to the existence of a material fact a grant of summaryjudgment would be improper
Rymer 68 V I at 577 Because summary judgment is [a] drastic remedy a court should only
grant summary judgment when the pleadings the discovery and disclosure materials on file and
any affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact Rymer 68 V I at 575 76
(quoting Williams 50 V I at 194) The Court is required to state on the record the reasons for
granting or denying the motion VI R Cw P 56(a)
DISCUSSION
‘1[ 11 In its motion Plaintiff argued that Defendant Jackstar breached the Lease Agreement (as
defined below) and Defendant LaCroix breached the Guaranty (as defined below) and therefore
it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor and against Defendants jointly and severally
Plaintiff claimed that the following material facts are undisputed (i) On April 15 2015, Defendant
Jackstar as lessee, and Plaintiff as lessor, executed a lease agreement in connection with the Lease
Premises commencing on April 15 2015 and expiring on April 30, 2018 (hereinafter 2015
Lease ) (ii) On April 15 2015 Defendant LaCroix as guarantor executed a personal guaranty
whereby he unconditionally guarantees the performance of all of Defendant Jackstar s obligations
to Plaintiff under the Lease (hereinafter Guaranty ) (iii)On January 1 2016 DefendantJackstar
and Plaintiff entered into a first amendment to the Lease but it did not alter the terms of the 2015
Lease (hereinafter 2016 Amendment and together with the 2015 Lease, Lease Agreement ),
(iv) Defendant LaCroix consented to the 2016 Amendment and agreed that the Guaranty remained
in full force and effect with respect to the Lease Agreement (v) In or about September 2017
Defendant Jackstar abandoned the Leased Premises and ceased operating a restaurant and bar
St CImrFinancial Center Inc v Jacksrar Inc era!
SX 18 CV 28?
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 8 01 17
business therein ' (vi) Plaintiff “at all times fulfilled all of its obligations under the Lease
[Agreement] (vii) Under the Lease Agreement Defendant Jackstar was obligated to pay during
the Lease term ending on April 30 2018 Minimum Rent and Additional Rent late charges in the
event rent was not paid on time utilities for the property interest on all amounts not paid when
due and any attorneys fees incurred by [Plaintiff] resulting from [Defendant] Jackstar 5 failure to
pay rent or other amounts due under the Lease [Agreement] , (viii) As of July 1 2021
[Defendant] Jackstar has failed to pay a total of $275 569 84 due under the Lease
[Agreement] , (ix) [A]s of July 6 2021 [Plaintiff] has incurred attorneys fees as a result of
[Defendant] Jackstar 5 failure to pay the amounts due under the Lease in the amount
of $21 274 00 ’ and (x) Defendant LaCroix has failed to pay the amounts due and owing from
[Defendant] Jackstar under the Lease [Agreement] (Plaintiff 5 Statement of Undisputed Facts )
A copy of the following documents were attached to Plaintiff 5 July 9 2021 motion as exhibits
Exhibit A Defendants answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, (ii) Exhibit B Plaintiff’s first set of
requests for admission to Defendant Jackstar dated June 21 2019' (iii) Exhibit C Plaintiff s first
set of requests for admission to Defendant LaCroix dated June 21 2019 and (iv) Exhibit D
Affidavit of Kevin M Brandt president of Plaintiff dated July 7 2021 the 2015 Lease the
Guaranty and the 2016 Amendment
A Countl Breach of Contract (against Defendant Jackstar)
‘|[ 12 In Phll/lp v Marsh Monsanto the Virgin Islands Supreme Court conducted a Banks
analysis and determined that to establish a breach of contract claim the plaintiff was required to
demonstrate (1) an agreement (2) a duty created by that agreement, (3) a breach of that duty and
(4) damages 66 V I 612 621 (V I 2017) (citing Brouzllard V BL] Mortgage Capital Inc 63
VI 788 798 (VI 2015) (citing Arlington Funding Servs Inc v Gezgel
51 VI 118 135 (VI
St Crow Futancm! Center Inc v Jackstat Inc eta!
SX 18 CV 283
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 9 0f 17
2009)) A contract may be ‘express, implied in fact or implied in law Turnbull v Turnbull
71 VI 96 105 (Super Ct July 15 2019) (citing Peppertree Terrace v thllams 52 V I 225 241
(V I 2009) (Swan, concurring» An express contract is memorialized in oral or written words,
and an implied in fact contract is inferred wholly or partially by conduct Id (citing Peppertree
Terrace 52VI at 241) (Swan concurring» see also Whyte v Bockmo
69 VI 749 764 (VI
2018) (citing Peppertree Terrace, 52 V I at 241) (Swan, concurring» An enforceable contract
requires an offer acceptance a bargained for legal benefit or detriment commonly known as
consideration, and a manifestation of mutual assent thltams v Umv of the VI 2019 VI
LEXIS 2 *4 (Super Ct Jan 18 2019) (citing Peppertree Terrace 52 VI at 241) (Swan
concurring)) see also Corneltus v Bank of Nova Swim 67 V I 806 820 (V I 2017)
( [A]contract is only formed or modified to the extent there is mutual assent and mutual
consideration ’) A manifestation of mutual assent or a meeting of the minds requires that the two
parties that intend to form a contract are in agreement to the same terms and must be proven
objectively Umv 0f the VI 2019 VI LEXIS 2 at *4 Strut}: v McLaughlm 2019 V
1 LEXIS
180 *7 (Super Ct Oct 22 2019)
El 13 In this instance the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding the facts supporting each element of the
breach of contract claim Plaintiff established the existence of an agreement between Plaintiff and
Defendant Jackstar (Defendants Answer ‘][‘][ 7 9 Plaintiff s first set of requests for admissions to
Defendant Jackstar Requests 3 7 I Brandt Aff ‘][‘][ 3 6 ) A copy of the Lease Agreement is a part
5 Rule 36 of Virgin Islands Rules 01 Civil Procedure (hereinaiter Rule 36 ) permits a party to serve on any other
party written requests tor admissions V I R CW P 36(21) and [a] matter is admitted unless within ‘40 days after
being served the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection
addressed to the matter and signed by the, party or its attorney V I R Clv P 36(2))(3) A matter admitted under this
[Rule '46] is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended
St CromFmancml Center Inc 1 Jackstm Inc et (1!
SK 18 CV 283
Memorandum Opinion 2022 V] SUPER 40
Page 10 of 17
of the record Under the Lease Agreement, Defendant Jackstar was required to pay the following
during the term of the Lease Agreement, commencing on April 15 2015 and expiring on April 30
2018 monthly minimum rent plus additional rent, which includes “all other sums of money or
charges of whatsoever nature required to be paid by Tenant to Landlord under this [2015 Lease]
(2015 Lease, 2016 Amendment Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to Defendant
Jackstar Requests 11 22 26 27 6 Brandt Aff ‘1[ 11 )Thus the Lease Agreement created a duty for
Defendant Jackstar to make payments to Plaintiff Defendant Jackstar breached this duty when it
failed to make payments to Plaintiff as required under the Lease Agreement (Plaintiff s first set
of requests for admissions to Defendant Jackstar, Requests 25 28 59 62 65 67 71 74;7 Brandt
Aff ‘1[‘][ 11 12) As a result of this breach Plaintiff suffered damages in the total amount of
V I R Clv P 36(bl However, ‘ [aln admission under this rule is not an admission tor any other purpose and cannot
be used against the party in any other proceeding Id Furthermore [wlhile Rule 36 allows a party to request
an admission 01 the application of law to fact requests for purely legal conclusions are not permitted
under Rule 36 because it could lead to parties stipulating to the law Watson 1 Cat (of the Vugm Islands 2017
V1 LEXIS 43 10 12 (Super Ct March 7 2017) see Matthew 1 Henna"
56 VI 674 682 (VI 2012)( parties
cannot stipulate to the 12m, especially in a situation where the decision may impact other pending or future
eases ) see also Der Ween Hess 01/ VI Coyp 64 V I 107 2016 V I LEXIS 21, *54 ( the parties cannot stipulate
to the law not explicitly by agreeing on the applicable law or implicitly by not questioning what law applies )
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
Here based on the record Plaintiit propounded Plaintiff’s first set 01 requests tor admissions to De1endant Jaekstar
on June 21 2019 and Plaintiff s first set 01 requests tor admissions to Detendant LaCroix on June 21 2019 and to
date Detendants have not served their responses thereto Under Rule 3600(3) matters contained in Plaintitt s requests
for admissions provided that the requests tall within the scope of Rule 36(a)(1}—were automatically deemed
admitted since more than thirty days have passed after Detendants were served and Detendants have not responded
with written answers or objections See VI R Clv P 36(a)(3) As such the Court must review the requests tor
admissions and make a finding as to which requests fall within the scope of Rule 36(a)(1) See Watson 2017 V I
LEXIS 43 at ‘12 ( Thus when the Court granted Plaintiffs motions to deem facts admitted against Detendant
Governor and Detendant 0V1 the Court should have specified in its orders entered on July 9 2013 and August 12
2013 that only those requests that tall Within the scope of Rule 36am 1) are deemed admitted and made a finding as
to which requests fall within the scope 01 Rule 36(a)( l) )
Upon review the Court tinds these requests tall within the scope 01 Rule 36121)“) and therefore they are deemed
admitted as provided for in Rule 36
5 See 1d Upon review the Court finds these requests tall within the scope 01 Rule 36(a)(1) and therelore they are
deemed admitted as provided tor in Rule 36
7 See 1d Upon review, the Court finds these requests tail within the scope 01 Rule 36(a)(1) and therefore they are
deemed admitted as provided for in Rule 36
St Crow Fmanaal Center Inc v Jackstar Inc era!
8X 18 CV 28%
Memorandum Opinion 2022 V1 SUPER 40
Page ll of 17
$296 843 84 which consists of $275 569 84 due under the Lease [Agreement] 8 plus $21 274 00
in attorneys fees [Plaintiff] has incurred in connection with [Defendant] Jackstar 5 non payment
of amounts due under the Lease [Agreement] (Brandt Aff ‘|[‘|[ l2 l3 ) Based on the foregoing,
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to its breach of contract claim against
Defendant Jackstar
B Count II Debt (against Defendant LaCroix)
<II 14 As noted in Carlos Warehouse v Thomas [10 Virgin Islands precedent (binding or
persuasive) explains what common law rule governs a claim for money owed and thus a Banks
analysis was necessary to determine whether a debt claim should be recognized under the common
law of the Virgin Islands and what specific rules should apply 64 V I I73 183 84 (V 1 Super
Ct May 12, 2016) The Carlos Warehouse court conducted a Banks analysis and concluded that
it is unquestionably the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands to recognize a claim for debt 1d at
192 (quotation marks and internal citation omitted) and that [t]0 state a common law claim for
debt under Virgin Islands law the plaintiff must allege that the defendant owes a certain amount
and that the defendant is or should be obligated to pay that amount Id Having reviewed the
Banks analysis conducted in Carlos Warehouse, this Court sees no reason to depart from that ruling
and adopts that analysis as though the same were set forth herein
‘1[ 15 [n this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied its burden of establishing that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding the facts supporting each element of the
8 $275 569 84 consists of$|49 I90 84 in unpaid rent additional rent utilities and other charges plus $1 II 037 IO m
interest on all amounts due and owing but unpaid trom January I 2017 through April 30 2018 plus $15 34] 90 on
amount due and owing but unpaid trom January 1 20l7 through April 30 20l8 minus $10 000 00 deposit under the
Lease Agreement (Brandt Aff El 12)
Sr Clout Fmanc‘tal Centel Inc v Jackstw Inc et a!
8X [8 CV 28%
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 12 0f 17
debt claim 9 Plaintiff established the existence of an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant
LaCroix (Defendants’ Answer ‘1[‘][ 8 10 Plaintiff s first set of requests for admissions to Defendant
LaCroix Request 9 '0 Brandt Aff ‘][‘|[ 4 8 ) A copy of the Guaranty is a pan of the record Under
the Guaranty Defendant LaCroix agreed to that if the rent is not paid by Tenant [Defendant
Jackstar] in accordance with the terms of the Lease [Agreement] or if any and all sums which are
now or may hereafter become due from Tenant [Defendant Jackstar} to Landlord [Plaintiff] under
the Lease [Agreement] are not paid by Tenant [Defendant Jackstar] in accordance with the Lease
[Agreement] Guarantor [Defendant LaCroix] will immediately make such payments [and] to
pay Landlord [Plaintiff] all expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) paid or incurred by
Landlord in endeavoring to collect the indebtedness evidenced by the Lease [Agreement] to
enforce the obligations of Tenant [Defendant Jackstar] guaranteed hereby or any portion thereof
or to enforce this Guaranty ’ (Guaranty p l Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to
Defendant LaCroix Request 10 76 77 " Brandt Aff ‘ll 5 ) Here Defendant Jackstar breached its
duty to make payments to Plaintiff under the Lease Agreement and Defendant Jackstar owes
Plaintiff the total amount of $296 843 84 under the Lease Agreement Thus under the Guaranty
Defendant LaCroix owes Plaintiff in the total amount of $296 843 84 and Defendant LaCroix is
obligated to pay said amount to Plaintiff (Plaintiff’s first set of requests for admissions to
9 The Court must note that while Plaintiff argued in its motion that Defendant LaCroix breached the Guaranty Plaintiff
did not allege a breach of contract cause of action against Delendant LaCroix See supra footnote 3 As noted above
the complaint alleged the lollowing counts Count I breach 0t contract (against Defendant Jackstar) Count II debt
(against Defendant LaCI‘OIX) and Count [ll hand (against Detendant LaCroix) Nevertheless the Court finds
Plaintifl s argument that Detendzmt LaCroix breached the Guaranty applicable to the analysis for Plaintitt s debt claim
against Detendant LaCroix
m See supra lootnote 5 Upon review the Court finds this request talls wuthln the scope 0t Rule 36(a)( l) and theretore
they are deemed admitted as provided tor in Rule 36
" See supra footnote 5 Upon review the Court finds these requests fall within the scope of Rule 16(3)“) and
therefore they are deemed admitted as provided tor in Rule 36
31 Crow Financial Center Inc t Jatksrar Inc eta!
8X 18 CV 28%
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page [3 0t 17
Defendant LaCroix Request 58 59 84 87 '° Brandt Aff ‘][ l4 ) Based on the foregoing Plaintiff
is entitled to judgment as matter of law as to its debt claim against Defendant LaCroix
C Count III Fraud (against Defendant LaCroix)
‘l[ 16 In this instance the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding the facts supporting each element of
the fraud claim because Plaintiff failed to make any argument in its motion as to its fraud claim
against Defendant LaCroix See V I R Civ P l l(b)(5) ( By presenting to the court a pleading
written motion or other paper whether by signing, filing submitting or later advocating it an
attorney or self represented party certifies that to the best of the person 5 knowledge information,
and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances (5) that the applicable
Virgin Islands law has been cited, including authority for and against the positions being advocated
by the party ) see also The thwm Corp v Universal 011 Prods C0 69 V I 380, 387 (V I
Super Ct Sept 28 2018) ( [I]t is not the Court 5 job to research and construct legal arguments
open to parties In order to develop a legal argument effectively the facts at issue must be bolstered
by relevant legal authority aperfunctory and undeveloped assertion is inadequate ) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted) The Court declines to make such arguments on Plaintiff’s
behalf See Joseph 1 Joseph 2015 V I LEXIS 43 *5 (V I Super Ct Apr 23 20l5) ( [I]n
general the Court will not make a movants arguments for him when he has failed to do so )
Based on the foregoing Plaintiff is not entitled tojudgment as a matter of law as to its fraud claim
against Defendant LaCroix
" See supm footnote 5 Upon review the Court finds these requests tall within the scope of Rule 36(a)(l) and
theretore they are deemed admitted as provided tor in Rule 36
5! Cum FmanczalCemer Inc 1 Jackstar Inc eta!
SX 18 CV 283
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 14 of 17
D Miscellaneous
‘il 17 Plaintiff also requested additional attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with
this action pre judgment interest and post judgment interest (Compl Motion p 7)
1 Additional Attorneys’ Fees
(ll 18 As to the additional attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with this action
Rule 54 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 54 ) provides that
[w]ithin 30 days after the entry of a final judgment or ajudgment allowing costs the prevailing
party shall serve on the adverse patty and file with the court a bill of costs, together with a notice
of motion when application will be made to the court to tax the same V I R Civ P 54(d)(l)(A)
Accordingly at this juncture, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for
additional attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in connection with this action However, Plaintiff
may file a separate motion for additional attorneys fees with proper briefing and supporting
documents in compliance with Rule 54 Failure to comply with Rule 54 may result in the costs
being waived See V I R Civ P S4(d)( l)(E)( Upon failure of the prevailing party to comply with
this Rule all costs may be waived )
2 Pre judgment Interest
‘1[ 19 Title 11 V I C §951(a)(l) provides that [t]he rate of interestshall be nine (9%) per centum
per annum on all monies which have become due Title 11 V IC § 9Sl(a)(l) ‘The grant or
denial of prejudgment interest remains within the sound discretion of the trial court Williams v
Edwards 20l7 VI LEXIS l05 at *6 (VI Super Ct July 12 2017) (quoting Isaacv Crichlow
63 VI 38 69 (VI Super Ct Feb 10 2015) The Court does not find that an award of pre
judgment interest inappropriate here to wit, the amount due was in money and easily
ascertainable based on the Lease Agreement See Remole v Sullivan 20 V I 434 1984 V I LEXIS
S! Crow Fmanaal Cente: Inc v Jacksmr Inc et a1
SX l8 CV 283
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page l5 0t 17
9 (V I Terr Ct June 7, 1984) (‘ the thrust of this section is to authorize prejudgment interest only
where the amount due is in money and therefore is easily ascertainable ) see also Track: Track:
v Mendoza
15 VI 256 259 (VI Terr Ct Aug 8 1978)( An award of interest pursuant to §
951(a) under this factual situation where the performance is incapable of precise valuation would
be in contravention of the intent of that section which is to award interest only where the amount
due is in money and therefore, easily ascertainable ) As such, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
request for pre judgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the individual amounts (that make
up the total outstanding amount) commencing from the date that such individual amounts (e g
monthly minimum rent, monthly additional rent, monthly utilities etc ) were due but not paid until
the date of the entry of this Order and Judgment
3 Post judgment Interest
‘I[ 20 Title 5 V I C § 426(a) provides that [t]he rate of interest on judgments and decrees for
the payment of money shall be 4 percent per annum Title 5 V I C § 426(a) In ChI’ISIlaM v
Joseph the Third Circuit while sitting as the de facto court of last resort for the Virgin Islands
held that Title 5 V I C § 426 provides for automatic accrual of post judgment interest '1 29 V I
'3 The Court notes that in this instance the Court need not undertake a Bank: analysis because this is an issue 0|
statutory interpretation rather than a determination 0t common law See In re L 0 F 62 V I 655 66! n 6 (V l 20l5)
(The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has established that a Banks analysis is not required for statutory
interpretation ) see also Smith 1 Henlet 67 VI 965 970 n 2 (VI 20l7) (“A Banks analysis was unnecessary
however because the issue here is purelyamatterot statutory interpretation not common law ) Bank.“ lmlRental
& Leasing Corp 55 V l 967 (V I 2011) Additionally the Court also notes that in Wallace I People ofthe V] the
Virgin Islands Supreme Court reallirmed that ‘ [ilt is true that prior decisions oi the Appellate Division remain binding
upon the Superior Court unless overturned by this Court 7| V I 703 718 n 5 (V I 20l9) (citing Defoe I Phllllp 56
V I [09 ll9 (V I 2012) ( This Court is not required to lollow decisions of the District Court or
the Third Circuitinterpreting local Virgin Islands law In addition to previously holding that decisions oi our
predecessor court the Appellate Division 01 the District Court of the Virgin Islands are not binding on us we have
also recently held that this Court unlike the Superior Court is not compelled to treat the Third Circuits
interpretation 0t Virgin Islands law as binding precedent Although the establishment 0t this Court has changed the
relationship between the local Virgin Islands judiciary and the Third Cireunt this Court's creation did not erase pre
existing case law and thus precedent that was extant when the Court became operational continues unless and until
this Court address the issues discussed there Accordingly deciSIons rendered by the Third Circuit and
St Crow Financial Center Inc v Jackstar Inc et a!
SX 18 CV 28%
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 16 of 17
404 408 (3d Cir 1993) Accordingly the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for post judgment
interest See Smith v Compamon Assurance Co 70VI 233 241 (VI Super Ct March 12 2019)
(the court granted Plaintiffs request for an award for post judgment interest ‘ because the
application of post judgment interest is automatic ) The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for
post judgment interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the total outstanding amount commencing
on the date of the entry of the judgment in this matter until the date the judgment is satisfied
CONCLUSION
‘][ 21 Based on the foregoing Plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary judgment, filed on July
8 2021 will be granted as to its breach of contract claim against Defendant Jackstar (Count I)
granted as to its debt claim against Defendant LaCroix (Count II) and denied as to its fraud claim
against Defendant LaCroix (Count III) Additionally, the Court will close this matter since there
are no other pending issues herein as to the merits of the case and the Court retains jurisdiction to
decide collateral issues such as costs and attorney 5 fees even after the entry of a final order Cf.
Yearwood Enters Inc v Antilles Gas Corp , 69 V I 863 870 (V I 2018) (‘ The proposition that
the Superior Court should only retain jurisdiction over motions for fees and costs if those motions
the Appellate Division of the District Court are binding upon the Superior Court even if they would only represent
persuasive authority when this court considers an issue (quoting Judi: of SI Clan Car Rental v Weston 49 V I
396 403 n 7 (VI 2008) In te People of the VI 5| VI 374 389 n9 (VI 2009))» The Court is nevertheless
cognizant that in Hunted t Hunted the Virgin Islands Supreme Court held that decisions of the Appellate Division
and the Third Circuit addressing issues 01 Virgin Islands common law are no longer binding on the Superior Court
63 VI 529 535 (VI 2015) (citing Gm roftlte V] t Connor
60 VI 597 605 n I (VI 2014)) and that decisions
issued by the Appellate Division after 2007 like decisions 01 the District Court or Third Circuit heard through
diversity or supplemental jurisdiction, are not binding on the Superior Court 63 V I at 535 (citing Better Bldg Mam:
0fthe VI Inc v Lee 60VI 740 755 56(VI 2014) Waltetsv Walters 60VI 768 777 n 10(VI 2014) People
1 Smtmonds 56V[ 84 90 (VI 8uper Ct 2012) Edward“ HOVENSA LLC 497 F ?d155 359 61 (3d Cir 2007))
However C/mman did not concern common law and it was issued prior to 2007 As such until the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court explicitly declares that all decisions 01 the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit are no longer
binding on the Virgin Islands Superior Court or definitely proclaims that the Title 5 V IC § 42601) does not provide
for automatic accrual of post judgment interest the Court continues to find Christian binding
St Cratx Fmancde Center Inc t Jackstar Inc et a!
SX 18 CV 28?
Memorandum Opinion 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page [7 0t 17
are filed before the entry of a final order whether in the form of voluntary dismissal or otherwise
finds no support in the decisions of Virgin Islands courts and contradicts the longstanding rules
of practice in this jurisdiction Therefore, we hold that the Superior Court retained jurisdiction
to consider a motion for attorney 5 fees following the voluntary dismissal of an action regardless
of whether that motion was filed before or after the notice of dismissal ) '4 An order andjudgment
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith
DONE this g8 day of March 2022
ATTEST Wflgfl%
Tamara Charles A 0L WL ILLOC
Clerk of the Court Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
By %W
ourt Clerk Semi
Dated :% [07% Z k? 3
'4 ln Yeamood the Virgin Islands Supreme Court explained
as Judge Easterhrook has explained ‘ Jurisdiction IS an all purpose word denoting adjudicatory power
A court may have power to do some things but not others and the use oi lack of jurisdiction to describe the
things it may not do does not mean that the court is out 0! business Svabo Food Semce Inc t Canteen
Cmp 823 F 2d ION [077 (7th Cir 1987) Indeed even the eases cited by Yearwood specifically note that
the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal deprives the court of jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the
damn and those decisions say nothing about the court 5 jurisdiction over collateral matters such as motions
for attorney 5 fees
69 V I at 866
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
ST CROIX FINANCIAL CENTER INC Civil No SX 18 CV 283
PLAINTIFF ACTION FOR FRAUD BREACH OF
V CONTRACT AND DEBT
JACKSTAR INC AND JEFF LACROIX JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS CITE AS 2022 VI SUPER 40
Appearances
Lisa Michelle Komives, Esq
Dudley Newman Feuerzeig LLP
St Thomas U 8 Virgin Islands
For Plamnfi”
Jeff LaCroix
Pro Se'
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion entered contemporaneously herewith it is
hereby
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff St Croix Financial Center
Inc 5 renewed motion for summary judgment filed on July 8, 202! is GRANTED as to its breach
of contract claim against Defendant Jackstar, Inc (Count I) GRANTED as to its debt claim
against Defendant Jeff LaCroix, and DENIED as to its fraud claim against Defendant Jeff LaCroix
(Count 111) It is further
' See tootnote l of the Memorandum Opinion entered contemporaneously herewith
St CmtrFmanuaI Center Inc v Jackstw Inc eta]
SX 18 CV 283
Order and Judgment 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 2 of 3
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of
Plaintiff St Croix Financial Center Inc and against Defendant Jackstar Inc as to Count I and that
judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff St Croix Financial Center Inc and against Defendant Jeff
LaCroix for Count II It is further
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff 5 request for pre judgment
interest and post interest judgment is GRANTED It is further
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s request for additional
attorneys fee incurred by Plaintiff in connection with this action is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE It is further
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a SUMMARY JUDGMENT shall be
entered in favor of Plaintiff St Croix Financial Center Inc and against Defendant Jackstar Inc
and Defendant Jeff LaCroix jointly and severally, as follows
(i) the total outstanding amount $296 843 84 plus
(ii) pre judgment interest which shail accrue at the rate of 9% per annum on the
individual amounts (that make up the total outstanding amount) pursuant to Title
11 V I C § 951(a)(l) commencing from the date that such individual amounts
(e g monthly minimum rent monthly additional rent monthly utilities etc ) were
due but not paid until the date of the entry of this Order and Judgment plus
(iii) post judgment interest which shall accrue at the rate of 4% per annum on the total
outstanding amount pursuant to Title 5 V I C § 426(a) commencing on the date of
the entry of this Order and Judgment until the date this Order and Judgment is
satisfied
It is further
5/ Craft Financh Cente: Inc | Jackstar Inc et a1
SX 18 CV 283
Order and Judgment 2022 VI SUPER 40
Page 3 0t 3
ORDERED that a copy of this Order and Judgment and the Memorandum Opinion entered
contemporaneously herewith shall be SERVED upon
(i) Lisa Michelle Komives Esq electronically
(ii) Jeff LaCroix via (i) certified mail and regular First Class mail to 5995 Old
Brunswick Road Lakeland TN 380027 and (ii) email to
jlacroix@groomsengines com 1
(iii) Jackstar Inc via certified mail and regular First Class mail to Bernard Patty
Esq Registered Agent The Pentheny Building [138 King Street Suite 204
Christiansted V100820 4
And it is further
ORDERED that this matter is hereby CLOSED
DONE and so ORDERED this 98%|” of March 2022
ATTEST Wafߢ
Tamara Charles HAROL WL WILLOC S
Clerk of the Court Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
By €97“7W
curt Cle k p71:
Dated y 9
’ This is the address provided by Plaintiff in its December 28 202] informational notice advising the Court that
Plaintift successfully served Defendant Jeft LaCroix
3 This is the email address provided in the 2015 Lease
4 This is the address prov1ded by Plaintitt in its December 28 202] informational notice advising the Court that
Plaintiff successfuily served Detendant Jackstar Inc 5 registered agent Bernard Pattie Esq