IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
ADMINISTRATOR-BENEFITS FOR 
:
CIVIL ACTION 
THE EXXONMOBIL SAVINGS PLAN 
:
:
No. 09-72
v. 
:
:
(consolidated)
RONALD WILLIAMS; PATRICIA BENJAMIN;
: 
DOLDRIA BENJAMIN; DANIEL WILLIAMS; 
:
AGNES ESPRIT; IRIS WILLIAMS; and 
:
JOSEPH BENJAMIN, SR. 
:
MEMORANDUM
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
 April 6, 2011
This is an interpleader action filed by the Administrator of an ExxonMobil Savings Plan (the
Plan) in which the Administrator seeks to distribute  $47,156.92, the balance of the savings account
of deceased former ExxonMobil employee Fitzroy Williams, to avoid the risk of multiple liability
to Fitzroy’s heirs.1 
 On December 6, 2010, this Court held a trial to determine whether the interpleader action
was properly filed and the rightful Plan beneficiary.  The Defendants failed to appear at trial.  Based
on the testimony and documents introduced by the Administrator, this Court finds the interpleader
device is proper and Ronald Williams is the sole beneficiary of Fitzroy’s savings account.  Therefore,
the Plan shall not be required to have any further involvement in this matter and the $47,156.92
which the Plan deposited with the Court shall remain in the Court’s custody until it is claimed by
Ronald.
1 Before the interpleader complaint was filed on May 21, 2009, Defendant Patricia Benjamin had
commenced several actions in various courts relating to the identity of the proper Plan beneficiary.
These actions were consolidated with this case and stayed pending resolution of the interpleader
action.
1
Case: 3:09-cv-00072-JRS-RM   Document #: 94   Filed: 04/06/11   Page 1 of 6
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
Fitzroy Williams was employed by Esso Virgin Islands, Inc. (Esso), a subsidiary of
ExxonMobil.
2.
In July 1989, Fitzroy became a participant in the Plan, a retirement savings program available
to Esso employees.
3.
As the designated Plan Administrator and fiduciary within the meaning of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(16)(A), the Administrator has
the authority to engage in litigation on behalf of the Plan.
4.
In September 1994, Fitzroy disappeared.  The following month, he was terminated from Esso
because he failed to appear for work.  He was never found.  In 2005, the Superior Court of
the Virgin Islands declared Fitzroy dead as of September 19, 1994.
5.
Prior to his death, Fitzroy accumulated Plan benefits worth $47,156.92.
6.
Fitzroy did not designate a beneficiary for his Plan benefits.
7.
According to the Plan’s Document of Trust, when a recipient is not named, the benefits are
awarded by the following successive preference:  spouse, child or children, parents, and
siblings.
8.
Fitzroy did not have a surviving spouse.
9.
Ronald Williams, who was born February 26, 1991, is Fitzroy’s only child.  
10.
Fitzroy named Ronald as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy.
11.
Defendant Doldria Benjamin is Ronald’s mother.  She was not married to Fitzroy at the time
of his death.
12.
In 2002, Defendant Patricia Benjamin was appointed Ronald’s guardian.  
2
Case: 3:09-cv-00072-JRS-RM   Document #: 94   Filed: 04/06/11   Page 2 of 6
13.
Ronald reached the age of majority on February 26, 2009.
14.
Defendants Daniel Williams and Agnes Esprit are Fitzroy’s parents.
15.
Defendant Iris Williams is Fitzroy’s sister.
16.
On September 3, 2009, this Court granted the Administrator’s motion to deposit the
$47,156.92 in accrued benefits into the Court’s registry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 67(a).  Such funds were deposited on September 10, 2009. 
DISCUSSION
The interpleader device is designed so that a plaintiff who faces “claims that may expose [it]
to double or multiple liability” may join multiple claimants as defendants and require them to
interplead.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1).  Specifically, an interpleader action allows “a party who fears
being exposed to the vexation of defending multiple claims to a limited fund or property that is under
his control a procedure to settle the controversy and satisfy his obligation in a single proceeding.” 
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258, 262 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting 7 Charles Allen
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1704 (3d ed. 2001)).  When a party
admits its liability in the context of a valid interpleader action, a court may allow the party to deposit
the money it owes with the court and withdraw from further proceedings, thereby leaving only the
parties with a genuine dispute to litigate among themselves.  Id.
During the first stage of an interpleader action, the court “determines whether the interpleader
complaint was properly brought and whether to discharge the stakeholder from further liability to
the claimants.”  Id.  In making this determination, the presence of counter-claims against the
stakeholder will not preclude discharging it from further liability if such counter-claims are based
on the stakeholder’s failure to pay the funds to a particular party.  Id. at 264-65 (“[W]here a
3
Case: 3:09-cv-00072-JRS-RM   Document #: 94   Filed: 04/06/11   Page 3 of 6
stakeholder is allowed to bring an interpleader action, rather than choosing between adverse
claimants, its failure to choose between the adverse claimants (rather than bringing an interpleader
action) cannot itself be a breach of a legal duty.”).  If a court finds the interpleader action is properly
brought, it must then determine “the respective rights of the claimants to the interpleaded funds.” 
Id.
The Administrator’s use of the interpleader device here was appropriate due to the multiple
potential beneficiaries of Fitzroy’s retirement fund.  After the Administrator notified Fitzroy’s
relatives about Fitzroy’s benefit fund, the relatives’ behavior made it nearly impossible for the Plan
to determine the proper beneficiary.  Ronald’s guardian, Patricia Benjamin, filed numerous lawsuits
both in this Court and in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, purportedly on behalf of Ronald,
in which she sought payment of the benefits and alleged various ERISA and RICO violations. 
Despite the Administrator’s best efforts, however, Ronald cannot be located and has not appeared
in this action even though he reached the age of majority before the interpleader action was filed. 
See 16 V.I.C. § 261 (stating the age of majority in the Virgin Islands is 18).  As part of Benjamin’s
attempts to gain access to the benefits fund, she submitted a materially false Family Status Affidavit,
signed by her former counsel, in which she failed to list any of Fitzroy’s living family members other
than Ronald.  Meanwhile, the other family members located by the Administrator have either failed
to respond to the numerous attempts to contact them, or have attempted to evade service altogether.2 
2 For example, after this Court directed the Administrator to serve its Order of December 22, 2009,
on all Defendants, Patricia Benjamin and Doldria Benjamin refused to accept service at their home
or workplace, or by signing for certified mail.  Defendants Daniel Williams and Iris Williams have
not formally responded to the Complaint.  The Administrator has also made numerous efforts to
obtain waivers from various family members regarding their eligibility to receive the benefit funds,
but has been largely unsuccessful.
4
Case: 3:09-cv-00072-JRS-RM   Document #: 94   Filed: 04/06/11   Page 4 of 6
Given this convoluted and frustrating history, the Administrator’s desire to disentangle itself from
further involvement in this matter is understandable.  Indeed, this is the very type of case for which
the interpleader action was designed.  See Francis I. du Pont & Co. v. Sheen, 324 F.2d 3, 4 (3d Cir.
1963) (“[T]he primary purpose of interpleader . . . [is] to relieve an obligor from the vexation of
multiple claims in connection with a debt which he admittedly owes to someone.”).
Having determined this interpleader action was properly brought, this Court must next decide
who is the proper beneficiary of the benefit funds.  Despite the complicated procedural history of this
matter, this determination is not difficult.  It is uncontested that Fitzroy had no spouse at the time of
his death, and that Ronald was his only child.  While the evidence was insufficient to show Ronald
was Fitzroy’s child when Benjamin first made a claim for benefits on Ronald’s behalf, evidence has
now been submitted showing Ronald is Fitzroy’s sole child.  Ronald’s birth certificate, which was
filed on March 1, 1991, lists “Fitzroy Robert Williams” as Ronald’s father.  Also, soon after
Ronald’s birth, Fitzroy completed a Beneficiary Designation form for his life insurance policy in
which he named “Ronald Tyrone Williams” as his sole child and indicated Ronald was to receive
100% of his life insurance benefits.  Fitzroy and a witness signed this form on April 4, 1991.  On
April 9, 1991, a representative from the Esso Human Resources Department sent a letter to Fitzroy’s
life insurance provider, directing the provider to add “Son - Ronald Williams” to Fitzroy’s policy. 
 Because Fitzroy did not have a surviving spouse and had only one child, Ronald is the proper
beneficiary of Fitzroy’s Plan benefits. 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
Because the Administrator has satisfied its obligation to pay the money it owes under the
Plan, it is relieved of further obligation in this matter.
5
Case: 3:09-cv-00072-JRS-RM   Document #: 94   Filed: 04/06/11   Page 5 of 6
2.
Ronald Williams, the only child of Fitzroy Williams, is the sole beneficiary of Fitzroy’s Plan
account benefits.  These benefits are worth $47,156.92.
3.
To the extent other potential beneficiaries wish to litigate this Court’s determination that
Ronald is Fitzroy’s sole beneficiary, they must file a notice with this Court within 30 days.
An appropriate order follows.
BY THE COURT:
 /s/  Juan R. Sánchez                
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
 
cc:
Charles E. Engeman, Esquire
Ronald Williams, pro se 
Bennett Chan, Esquire 
Doldria Benjamin, pro se
Geoffrey E. Wolfe, Esquire
Daniel Williams, pro se
Wilfredo A. Geigel, Esquire  
Agnes Esprit, pro se
Iris Williams, pro se
Joseph Benjamin, Sr., pro se 
Patricia Benjamin, pro se 
6
Case: 3:09-cv-00072-JRS-RM   Document #: 94   Filed: 04/06/11   Page 6 of 6