IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



DIVISION OF ST. CROIX AT CHRISTIANSTED



CAMILLE SEALEY

Plaintiff CIVIL NO. 7117/1982

VS. ACTION FOR DAMAGES



ROBERT CAMACHO and GOVERNMENT

OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



Defendants



eet Set are eel Sane eee Saat et Sree Sime Saaeeh



G. LUZ A. JAMES, ESQUIRE



46-47 Company Street



Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands

(Attorney for Plaintiff)



JOYCE G. O'REILLY, ESQUIRE



Assistant Attorney General



Department of Law



Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands

(Attorney for Defendants)



FINCH, Judge



MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER



This matter came before the Court on plaintiff's motion

for reconsideration of an order entered by the court on May 4,

1983 denying plaintiff permission to file late claim pursuant

to Title 33 V.I.C. §3409(c). For the reasons set forth below,

plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied.



Plaintiff filed a motion for permission to file a late



claim pursuant to Title 33 V.I.c. §3409. The motion was

Memorandum Opinion

Sealey vs. Camacho - Civ. 717/1981

Page 2



denied because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable

excuse for failing to file a valid notice of intention, as

required by Title 33 V.I.C. §3409. Plaintiff now moves for

reconsideration of the court's denial of permission to file a

late claim.



Title 33 V.I.C. §3409 grants the court discretionary

power to permit the filing of a late claim within two years

after the accrual of a claim. However, the statute

specifically outlines requirements which must be met before

the court could exercise its power and permit the filing of a

late claim. The statute authorizes a court to pérmit a late

claim to be filed at anytime within two years after the

accrual thereof provided the following conditions are met:



(a) a motion for permission to file a late

claim must be filed by the claimant;



(b) an affidavit(s) must accompany the mot-

ion stating a reasonable excuse for

failing to comply with the statute and

showing that the Government had timely

and actual knowledge of the incident;

and



(c) claimant must establish that the Gov-

ernment of the Virgin Islands was not

substantially prejudiced by the failure

of filing a valid notice of intention.



These procedural requirements of the Tort Claims Act must be



strictly complied with to enable the court to permit the

Memorandum Opinion

Sealey vs. Camacho - Civ. 717/1981

Page 3



filing of a late claim. Mercer v. Government of the the



Virgin Islands, Civil No. 523/80, Territorial Court of the



V.I., Div. of St. Thomas and St. John (May 12, 1982). Other-

wise, the court cannot exercise the discretionary authority

granted to it by the statute.



In this present case the plaintiff has submitted all of

the required papers and affidavit to support the motion for

permission to file a late claim. However, plaintiff did not

initially state a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with

the statute and still fails to show such excuse.



In reviewing the record in light most favorable to the

plaintiff, this court must conclude that there are no allega-

tions which may constitute a reasonable excuse as required by

§3409(c). Plaintiff's attorney states in his supporting

affidavit of the motion for reconsideration that he filed the

notice of intention



within the required 90 day period; however

[that] said notice did not contain the date

of the occurrence. .

In his affidavit supporting his motion for permission to file

a late claim, plaintiff's attorney stated:

that although actual injury to plaintiff

occurred on or about April 14, 1981, counsel

neglected to follow the requirements as out-

lined in Title 33 V.I.C. Section 3409(c) in

his notice of intention to file a claim to



the Governor of the Virgin Islands on July

6, 1981.

Memorandum Opinion



Sealey vs. Camacho - Civ. 717/1981



Page 4



It is the opinion of this Court that plaintiff's attorney



states no facts or circumstances,



except for his admitted



"neglect", which constitutes a reasonable excuse.



Therefore,



plaintiff having failed to present a reasonable excuse for his



failure to file a valid notice of intention as required by



subsection (c) of Section 3409,



the Court cannot exercise its



discretionary power and permit the filing of a late claim.



Accordingly,



plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of



the court's order dated May 4, 1983 is hereby denied.



DATED:



i]



-2



“2



Det



i



2



nh



Loy Dy /



mL) Finch, Judge