IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX



NADIA DRAYTON,



PLAINTIFF, CASE NO. SX-2014-DV-029

Vv. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

FREESTON DRAYTON,



DEFENDANT.



MEMORANDUM OPINION



THIS MATTER came before the Court on Monday, March 2, 2014, on a

domestic violence complaint, filed by Nadia Drayton against Freeston Drayton on or

about February 14, 2014. At the scheduled hearing, Nadia Drayton was represented

by Attorney Richard Austin of Legal Services of the Virgin Islands. Attorney Martial

Webster represented Freeston Drayton.



In her complaint and at the hearing, Nadia Drayton alleged that Freeston Drayton

appeared at their former marital abode at 676 Barren Spot on or about January 23,

2014, asserting his right of entry. She stated he attempted to push his way past her,

but she was able to close the door before he was able to. She further stated that on

February 14, 2014, he came to her home at 7:30 a.m., and blocked her vehicle from

leaving for about twenty minutes, while staring at her as if daring her to do something.

On February 20, 2014, she says that she heard Mr. Drayton's vehicle and observed him

from her kitchen window as he walked around the yard with a machete in hand. cursing

and saying she had better watch her back or she would get what is coming to her. She

described these incidents as a continuing pattern or practice of harassment by Mr.

Drayton toward her in order that she may vacate the premises. She also asserts the



visits to the home are a violation of a standing order in the parties’ divorce proceedings.

Nadia Drayton v. Freeston Drayton

Case No. SX-10-CV-63 Memorandum Opinion Page 2



Mr. Drayton disputed Mrs. Drayton's account of the January 23, 2014-visit. He

admitted he went to the house, but only after he was advised an earlier temporary

restraining order had been resolved and he could return to the former marital abode.

He disputed the assertion he attempted to push past Mrs. Drayton: and he called a

friend, Donald Claxton, who said that he observed Mr. Drayton give Mrs. Drayton a

paper, and then observed Mrs. Drayton take the paper and close the door. He said he

called Mr. Drayton to him, and Mr. Drayton responded by leaving the residence with

him. He testified he observed no shouting and did not see Mr. Drayton attempt to push

past Mrs. Drayton. Mr. Drayton also denied the incident complained of on February 14,

2014, and argued that it would be physically impossible to block Mrs. Drayton's vehicle

given the layout of the property. He admitted going to the property after February 14,

2014, to pick coconuts, but denied threatening Mrs. Drayton. He said he has gone to

the yard a couple of times, but has not seen Mrs. Drayton. He said he chopped

coconuts and left. He said he was advised the police were looking for him, and learned

a new application for a temporary restraining order had been filed only after he went to

the property to get the coconuts.



Mr. Drayton’s attorney argued the current matter stems from an ongoing plot by

Mrs. Drayton to file domestic violence complaints against Mr. Drayton in order to obtain

an advantageous position in their divorce matter. He pointed to two other cases filed

by Mrs. Drayton, which were dismissed when audio and video evidence served to

dispute or undermine her assertions. He pointed to the timing of the instant matter —

just weeks after the dismissal of the last application and after Mr. Drayton asserted his

“right” to possession of the former marital abode. Mrs. Drayton's attorney argued the



evidence admitted is sufficient to support a permanent restraining order. He argued the

Nadia Drayton v. Freeston Drayton

Case No. SX-10-CV-63 Memorandum Opinion Page 3



visits served as harassment and an attempt at intimidation. He questioned Mr.

Drayton’s assertion he was there to retrieve tools while separately asserting he is

disabled from an ongoing medical condition. He argued that Mr. Drayton knows the

parties’ relationship is acrimonious and that prudence would have dictated he not go to

property until the parties’ divorce and property disputes are finally settled. He pointed to

Mr. Drayton's stature and argued any reasonable person would be fearful under similar

circumstances. He also noted Mr. Drayton's obvious feelings that he is the sole owner

of the property, having bought the undeveloped land on which the former marital abode

sits prior knowing Mrs. Drayton.



To prevail on her application for a permanent restraining order, a victim must

prove the allegations of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence. Title

16 V.I.C. § 97(a). Under Virgin Islands law, any of an enumerated list of acts, attempts

or threats against someone who is protected would constitute domestic violence. Title

16 V.I.C. § 91(b). In this case, Mrs. Drayton, in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, checked

three acts or threats of domestic violence, to wit harassment, destruction of property,

and forcible or unlawful entry.



At the hearing, if Mrs. Drayton established by a preponderance of the evidence

that she has been subjected to an act, threat or attempt of harassment, destruction of

property, and/or unlawful entry, and that a permanent restraining order is needed in

order to deter or prevent further incidents of abuse, she must be granted that

permanent restraining order. Title 16 V.I.C. § 91(a) (3). If the court is not convinced of



her arguments when applying the appropriate standard of proof, the matter must be



dismissed.

Nadia Drayton v. Freeston Drayton

Case No. SX-10-CV-63 Memorandum Opinion Page 4



ANALYSIS

That complaint alleged, in Paragraph No. 5, acts by Mr. Drayton of (1)

harassment: (2) forcible or unlawful entry; or (3) destruction of property. At trial, Mrs.

Drayton and her attorney pointed to what they believe is a continuing pattern or practice

of harassment, designed to remove her from the parties’ former marital abode so that

Mr. Drayton could regain possession. This harassment, they assert, includes not just

the period prior to the filing of the complaint, but immediately thereafter.



Harassment is defined in Title 16 of the Virgin Islands Code, in part, as:



engaging in a purposeful, knowing or reckless course of conduct



involving more than once incident that alarms, or causes distress to



another person and serves no legitimate purpose. The course of



conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person



distress and must actually cause distress.



Mrs. Drayton has alleged several acts she claims were harassing. If any are

viewed in isolation, one might reasonably argue they do not constitute harassment as

defined by the applicable provision. However, when viewed together, this Court

believes that Mrs. Drayton has established on the record, by preponderance, that she is

a victim of harassment as defined.



Rightly or wrongly so, Mrs. Drayton has been living at the parties’ marital abode

since May of 2013, when a temporary restraining order removed Mr. Drayton from the

premises and returned possession to Mrs. Drayton (who had vacated the premises

months earlier.) That temporary restraining was dissolved in January 2014 and it was

apparent Mr. Drayton believes, rightly or wrongly so. that the dissolution of the



temporary restraining order did or should have returned the parties to the status quo



ante.

Nadia Drayton v. Freeston Drayton

Case No. SX-10-CV-63 Memorandum Opinion Page 5



It was clear from the testimony that when Mr. Drayton went to the property on

January 23, 2014, he believed he had a right to be there. He did not go there to inform

Mrs. Drayton of this perceived right. He went to assert that perceived right. This Court

believes he did or should have known that, given the acrimonious relationship and

history between him and Mrs. Drayton, confrontation was likely to ensue. Still, he tried

to gain entry into the house, but was unable to do so when Mrs. Drayton closed the

door. The Court finds it more likely than not that he behaved in the manner alleged by

Mrs. Drayton. This is evident from the fact that he (admittedly) did not leave the

premises until the police were called, arrived, and escorted him away.



After that, the Court believes and finds that Mr. Drayton, obviously frustrated with

the turn of events on January 23, 2014, began to assert his perceived right in other

ways. The Court finds that he went to the property on other occasions, creating an

environment ripe for intimidation and fear. On or about February 14, 2014, he went to

the property at 7:30 a.m., and blocked Mrs. Drayton from leaving. According to him, he

sought tools for an unstated purpose, while still maintaining that he is disabled and

unable to work. He went on the property to cut coconuts, which he says he used for

health reasons; but the Court finds it more likely he used the coconut gathering as an

excuse to demonstrate to Mrs. Drayton that he intended to be unrelenting.



While on the property, Mr. Drayton possessed a machete. He may have used it

to cut coconuts, but this Court finds he did and/or should have known how intimidating

and frightening the open possession of this item could be for Mrs. Drayton and the

parties’ minor children. Mr. Drayton argued he is a changed man, and maybe he is, but

this revelation did not diminish the Court's concern over his behavior prior to the filing of



the complaint against him. This is particularly true since the parties are apparently

Nadia Drayton v. Freeston Drayton

Case No. SX-10-CV-63 Memorandum Opinion Page 6



mired, knee-deep, in a divorce action — a far better forum for resolving their property

issues than that which was presented them at the moment of confrontation in January

and thereafter.



In sum, this Court believes and finds that Mrs. Drayton is and was fearful of what

has happened, and that she has been distressed by the turn of events leading up to the

filing of the complaint, and thereafter. The behavior of Mr. Drayton appears to have as

a principal purpose the alarm or distress she has suffered and, for these reasons, the

Court has concluded she has been the victim of an act, attempt or threat of domestic

violence.



Because the Court finds that Mr. Drayton has harassed Mrs. Drayton as defined

by the domestic violence statute, it need not decide whether he also committed an act,

attempt or threat of destruction of property or forcible or unlawful entry as only one

occurrence need be proven. Since the object of the parties’ disdain for one another

appears to be the former marital abode, the Court further finds it prudent and necessary

to only put the order in place, but only for a period long enough to permit the Family

Court to address the pending divorce matter.



A permanent restraining order that will expire at the end of six (6) months shall

issue under separate cover. This permanent restraining order will bar Mr. Drayton from

having any direct contact with Mrs. Drayton and provide her with temporary possession

of the parties’ marital abode. This order will be subject to any final order granted in the



parties’ divorce matter. .



GALLIVAN

Superior Cotnt Magistrate



(Court Gkerk Supervibor — Date: oP va Le