IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX



ELSA GOODMAN,

Plaintiff, | SX-08-CV-401

Vv.

CAROLE CHESTNUT,

Defendant.

ORDER



THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment,

filed on December 20, 2010. On January 31, 2011, the Parties filed a Stipulation for Extension

of Time Within Which to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Simultaneously on

January 31, 2011, Defendant filed: (1) Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Motion in Limine and or to Strike “all

references to the facts and circumstances surrounding the purchase of the Maryland Property

made by Plaintiff in her Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.

On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine and or to

Strike. On February 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs

Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court having been advised on the premises, it is hereby:



Ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. It is further:



Ordered that the Parties’ Stipulation for Extension of Time Within Which to File

Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. It is further:



Ordered that Defendant’s Motion in Limine and or to Strike “all references to the facts

and circumstances surrounding the purchase of the Maryland Property made by Plaintiff in her

Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. It is further:



Ordered that Defendant’s Cross Motign for Summary Judgment is Denied.



DONE and so ORDERED this VA day of March, 2011.



HAROLD W. L. WILLCCKS

Judge of the Superior Court



CERTIFIED TO BEA TRUE COP

: This day of 2 20

/| VENETIA H., VELAZQUEZ, ESQ.



CLERK OF THE COURT

SY Dunale Court Clerk fF



ATTEST:

Venetia He

J;



Clerk ofAhe Gant



By: LW f

Deputy Cler,



Dated: © /) /

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

ELSA GOODMAN,

Plaintiff, | SX-08-CV-401

Vv.

CAROLE CHESTNUT,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION



THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment,

filed on December 20, 2010. On January 31, 2011, the Parties filed a Stipulation for Extension

of Time Within Which to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment.' Simultaneously

on January 31, 2011, Defendant filed: (1) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary

Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Motion in Limine and or to Strike

“all references to the facts and circumstances surrounding the purchase of the Maryland Property

made by Plaintiff in her Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403

On February 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine and or to



Strike. On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine and



' The Court does not have to grant the extension merely because the Parties stipulated to such extension. Under the

Local Rules of Civil Procedures 56.1(c)(1), “When a party requests an extension of time from the other party, the

parties shall first make a good faith effort to negotiate a reasonable extension... The party seeking the extension must

file notice of any such negotiated extension before the filing date prescribed in this rule.” Emphasis added.

Defendant, as the party seeking the extension, did not file a timely notice with the Court of such negotiated

extension before the filing date, which is within twenty days of the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary

Judgment. LRCi. 56(b). Accordingly, the Court will deny the Parties Stipulation for Extension of Time and

therefore, the Court will not consider Defendant’s untimely Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary

Judgment.



? The Court is cognizant that, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, all relevant evidence is admissible except,

inter alia, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 402

provides, “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United

States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory

authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 403 provides, “Although relevant,

evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless

presentation of cumulative evidence.” At this juncture, Plaintiff's arguments in her Motion for Summary Judgment

are before the Court, not the jury. Therefore, there will be no danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or

misleading the jury. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion in Limine and or to Strike.

Elsa Goodman v. Carole Chestnut

SX-08-CV-401



Memorandum Opinion



Page 2



or to Strike. On February 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to



Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.



FACTS



On August 6, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff is an adult

resident of Montgomery County, Maryland, owning real property on the island of St. Croix, U.S.

Virgin Islands (hereinafter, the “ St. Croix Property”). Defendant is Plaintiff's niece and an adult

resident of Prince Georges County, Maryland.



In January 2006, Plaintiff was residing at the St. Croix Property. Defendant came to

visit Plaintiff from January 11 to January 18, 2006. Prior to Defendant’s trip, Defendant had not

seen Plaintiff for approximately forty years. Plaintiff alleged that, in exchange for Defendant to

take care of her, she promised to give Defendant the St. Croix Property upon her death. On

March 6, 2006, Plaintiff conveyed the St. Croix Property by a quitclaim deed to herself and

Defendant as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. In January 2007, Plaintiff moved from St.

Croix to Maryland. In connection with Plaintiff's move to Maryland, Defendant was given a

power of attorney by Plaintiff to purchase a residence in Silver Spring, Maryland. The residence

in Maryland (hereinafter, the “Maryland Property”) was purchase in November 2006. According

to Plaintiff, unbeknownst to her and without her consent, authority or approval, Defendant added

her name to the title of the Maryland Property as joint tenants with right of survivorship. In

April 2007, Plaintiff decided to refinance the Maryland Property and requested Defendant to

remove her name from the title to the Maryland Property. Defendant refused to remove her

name from the title to the Maryland Property. In August 2007, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against



Defendant in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland for fraud, breach of fiduciary



3 The following is an account of the facts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment.

Elsa Goodman v. Carole Chestnut

SX-08-CV-401



Memorandum Opinion



Page 3



duty, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and reformation of title (hereinafter, the

“Maryland Lawsuit”). In April 2008, the jury in the Maryland Lawsuit found that the re-titling

of the Maryland Property was for probate purposes only and not a gift to Defendant. In May

2008, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland entered a judgment directing

Defendant, as a constructive trustee, to convey her right, title and interest in the Maryland

Property to Plaintiff.



Plaintiff also requested Defendant to remove her name from the title to the St. Croix

Property. Defendant also refused to remove her name from the title to the St. Croix Property.

Therefore, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant, alleging Fraud, Breach of Contract and

Negligent Misrepresentation, and requested the Court for Reformation of Title of the St. Croix

Property. On January 28, 2009, Defendant filed her Answer and Counterclaim, seeking a share

of any net rental income from the St. Croix Property.



DISCUSSION



Summary Judgment



The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is appropriate if

“the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying

those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact or

the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the non-



moving party who cannot rest on the allegations of the pleadings and must “do more than simply

Elsa Goodman v. Carole Chestnut

SX-08-CV-401



Memorandum Opinion



Page 4



show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” See Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).



A factual dispute is deemed genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). “The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat

an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Jd. at 247-48. The Court may

not make credibility determinations or weigh evidence. Jd. at 255. If the record thus construed

could not lead the trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587. In analyzing this motion for summary judgment,

this Court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all

reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Morton Intern., Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 343

F.3d 669, 680 (3d Cir. 2003); Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir. 2000).



In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues that there are no genuine issues as

to any material fact in this matter. “Jt is clear that a confidential relationship existed between the

Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant has testified that her name was placed on the deed

because the Plaintiff didn’t want the St. Croix Property to go to the Government upon her death.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's transfer of the interest in the St. Croix Property was for estate planning

purposes.” Pl’s Mot. Summ. J. 5. Plaintiff also reminds the Court that that the proper remedy in

this case is the same as the remedy ordered by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,

Maryland—a judgment directing Defendant, as a constructive trustee, to convey her right, title

and interest in the St. Croix Property to Plaintiff. Although Defendant filed an Opposition to

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court



will not consider it because it was filed untimely.

Elsa Goodman v. Carole Chestnut

SX-08-CV-401



Memorandum Opinion



Page 5



The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's arguments that there are no genuine issues as to any

material fact in this matter. In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff, the moving party,

has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to any

essential element of her claims against Defendant. Once this showing has been made, the burden

shifts to Defendant, the non-moving party, who must put forth sufficient pieces of affirmative

evidence that confirm such a dispute remains. The record will be viewed in the light most

favorable to Defendant. If Defendant fails to meet his burden, the Court will award Plaintiff

summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Even if a defendant failed to respond to a

plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, the court should still deny the plaintiff's motion

unless plaintiff, the moving party, met her initial burden of showing absence of material facts in

dispute under the standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. James Carty v. Hess Oil Virgin

Islands Corporation, 78 F. Supp. 2d. 417 (1999).



Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not meet the initial burden of showing that there

are no genuine issues as to any material fact that exists concerning her claims against Defendant.

Based on the existing record, viewed in favor of Defendant, a reasonable jury could find that

there was no Fraud, no Breach of Contract and no Negligent Misrepresentation that took place

between Plaintiff and Defendant—that Plaintiff transferred the interest in the St. Croix Property

to Defendant as a gift and not for estate planning purposes. The Court finds that there are

genuine issues of material facts regarding Plaintiff's claims against Defendant that should be left

to the trier of fact to decide at trial, like the matter related to the Maryland Property.



The Court will also address Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment at this

time. Similarly, the Court finds that Defendant did not meet the initial burden of showing that



there are no genuine issues as to any material fact that exists concerning Plaintiff's claims

Elsa Goodman v. Carole Chestnut

Sx-08-CV-401



Memorandum Opinion



Page 6



against her. Based on the existing record, viewed in favor of Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could

find that there was Fraud, Breach of Contract and/or Negligent Misrepresentation that took place

between Plaintiff and Defendant—that Plaintiff transferred the interest in the St. Croix Property

to Defendant strictly for estate planning purposes and not as a gift. Accordingly, the Court finds

that there are genuine issues of material facts in this matter that should be left to the trier of fact



to decide at trial.



CONCLUSION



At this stage, viewing the facts and evidence in the light most favorable to Defendant, the

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her initial burden of showing that there are no

genuine issues of material facts that exists in regard to Plaintiffs Fraud claim, Breach of

Contract claim and Negligent Misrepresentation claim against Defendant. Similarly, viewing the

facts and evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendant has

failed to meet her initial burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material facts that

exists in regard to Plaintiffs Fraud claim, Breach of Contract claim and Negligent

Misrepresentation claim against Defendant. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion

for Summary Judgment and deny Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court

will issue an order consistent with this an Opinion.



DONE and so ORDERED this fa day of March, 2011.



msn. Abit



Venetia Harvey- Velazquez ‘HAROLD W. L. WILLOCKS

Judge of the Superior Court



CERTIFIED TO BE A,JTRUE COPY



Depaty i ThisI/* day ATA 2 10

Dated: ¢ y) Hy VENETIA H. VELAZQUEZ, ESQ.



SLERK OF THE COURT

By ourt Clerk ZZ