Christoph Keith Massac v. Government of the Virgin Islands, Office of the Lieutenant Governor

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: April 19, 2021
• Docket: ST-20-CV-278
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

II\ THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLA1\ DS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN x****x******

CHRISTOPH KEITH MASSAC ) ) CASE l\0 ST 2020 CV 00278 Plaintiff, ) ) ACTIOIN TO QUIET TITLE vs ) ) GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR) and all parties claiming an interest in Parcel No ) 486 Remainder and Parcel No 537 Remainder ) Chocolate Hole, St John, Virgin Islands, ) ) Defendants )

C ite as VI Super 45

ATIIM D ABRAHAM Esquire Law Offices of Clive Rivers St Thomas U S V I for the Plamtgff.

JULIE A BEBERMAN Assistant Attorney General Virgin Islands Department of Justice St Thomas U S V I for the (rovemmem 0f the Virgin Islands Office ofthe Lieutenant Goxernor

FRANCOIS Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

111 THIS MATTER is before the C ourt 0n Christoph Keith Massac and Government of the Virgin Islands, Office of the Lieutenant Governor s Stipulation T0 Consent Judgment, filed on March 26 2021

112 This case presents the novel issue of whether the Government specifically the Office of the Lieutenant Governor which encompasses the Recorder of Deeds may act as a proxy for a party in the reformation of a deed by stipulation The Court finds that the parties seeking reformation of a deed by stipulation must be the same as those involved in the conveyance Cliristoph KEN]! Massac v Government of the VIrgm Islands, er (II VI Supei 45 Case No ST 2020 CV 00278 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 2 of 7

I [INTRODUCTION

113 Plaintiff Christoph Massac ( Massac ) filed the instant case on July 13 2020 Massac purchased a one third (1/3) interest in property in St John on May 9, 2006 Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands, Office of the Lieutenant Governor ( Government ) rejected Massac s quitclaim deed allegedly because it omitted a dash in its description of the P W D Map Massac sued the Government as Massac could not locate the original quitclaim deed and he sought an order directing the Lieutenant Governor 5 Office to attest a copy of the original deed and record it Over the course of this case, Massac and the Government apparently discovered that the quitclaim deed had an error because it purported to convey a previously conveyed parcel

114 Massac and the Government now move this Court to approve their Stipulation To Consent Judgment, so that the quitclaim deed may be corrected and subsequently attested to and recorded Specifically, the parties request the deed be reformed with the following eleven (11) terms and conditions

I That on May 9 2006 there was a deed executed by Grantor Irma Echevarria in favor of Grantee, Christoph Keith Massac

11 That the Grantor Irma Echevarria could not legally give what she did not possess

III That the [Office of the] Public Surveyor is in possession of the OLG Map No D9 5484 T94 which shows that Grantor was not in possession of Parcel No 537 3 on May 9 2006

IV That there was a scrivener 3 error in including Parcel No 537 3 Estate Chocolate Hole because that property had already been conveyed prior to 2006

V That OLG Map No D9 5484 T94 shows that Grantor was only in possession of a 1/3 interest in the following parcels a Parcel No 486 Remainder b Parcel No 537 Remainder, including Parcel No 537 l and ParcelNo 537 2

VI That Parcel No 537 Remainder as shown on OLG Map No D9 5484 T94 was further subdivided in 2012 to include a new Parcel No 537 4 ( The Pond )

VII That Grantor Irma Echevarria also received a U3 interest in Parcel No 537 4 ( The Pond ) by way of an Adjudication entered by the Superior Court in Probate No ST 04 PB 03 on January 26 2015 Christoph Ketth Massuc v Government of the Virgin Islands, e! a! VI Supei 45 Case No ST 2020 CV 00278 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 3 0f 7

VIII That in 2006 when Grantor executed the Quit Claim Deed, Parcel No 537 4 was a part of Parcel No 537 Remainder as shown on OLG Map No D9 5484 T94

IX That Irma Echevarria possessed clear title and the right to convey Via the 2006 Quit Claim any and all her interest in the following parcels a Parcel No 486 Remainder b Parcel No 537 Remainder, including ParcelNo 537 1 and Parcel No 537 2

X That the Quit Claim Deed is hereby reformed to conform to the fact that Grantor, Irma Echevarria held a 1/3 interest in Parcel No 486 Remainder and Parcel No 537 Remainder, including Parcels no 537 1, 537 2 Estate Chocolate Hole, N0 11 Cruz Bay Quarter, St John U S Virgin Islands, as particularly shown on P W D Map No D9 3860 T67 and O L G File No A9 454 T94 which was duly conveyed to Plaintiff Via Quitclaim Deed dated May 9, 2006

X1 That the instant Consent Order once duly executed by all parties and the Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands shall be filed with the Office of the Recmder of Deeds Division of St Thomas and St John, within thirty days as conclusive evidence of the facts stated herein

115 Ms Irma Echevarria the grantor 0f the original quitclaim deed has since passed away ‘

II LEGAL STANDARD

A Reformation of a Deed

116 Reformation of a deed is an equitable remedy 2 Deed reformation is generally governed by contract law; as the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands stated ‘ [a] deed is a contract, and thus in most circumstances the principles of contract interpretation govern ’3 Or as the District Court stated in Chrzstmas \ V 1 Water & Power Auth ,4 deeds should be construed and enforced according to the principles of contract law 5 The issue before the Court now is one, therefore of contract reformation In Cent Mong Co v Panels,6 the Virgin Islands District Court conducted 21 Banks analysis and adopted the elements of reformation of a contract based on mutual mistake

lPl sCompl 1111 1 See Wilkinson v Wilkinson 70 V1 901 917 (VI 2019) (quoting Andie“ t P0118] llktg Duect Inc 2012 Ohio 4371 978 N E 2d 974 988 (Ohio Ct App 2012)) ( A party seeking an equitable remedy such as declaiatory judgment reformation or rescission of a contract must prove a fraud claim with clea1 and convincing evidence ) Alevcmdel v Alexandez 65 VI 372 n 6 (V1 2016)( Anduze never requested equitable relief from the Superior Court and we decline to addxess as part of this appeal whether reformation of the defective deed would have been possible ) 3 St) 611716}? v Underwood 2021 V13 1124 45271: Supp 843 (DVI 1981) 3 [d at 847 (citing t0 Wet e1 haeusel Co v Carolma P0146] & Light Co 127 S E 2d 539 541 (N C 1962)) 6 CivilNo 2014 0096 VI 2017 D S Dist LEXIS 47755 (DVI Mai 30 2017) Clmstoph Keith Massac v Government of the Virgin Islands, er a] VI Super 45 Case No ST 2020 CV 00278 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 4 of 7

as outlined in § 155 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts 7 The Court adopts the sound analysis of the Virgin Islands District Court in Central Mongage Company

117 Section 155 provides that

Where a writing that evidences or embodies an agreement in whole or in part fails to express the agreement because of a mistake of both parties as to the contents or effect of the writing, the court may at the request of a party reform the writing to express the agreement except to the extent that rights of third parties such as good faith purchasers for value will be unfairly affected 8

118 In adopting § 155, the District Court in Central Maitgage Company was considering reformation of a mortgage document 9 The District Court concluded reformation based on mutual mistake should be adopted because [s]uch an equitable remedy will permit land to be alienated where mutual mistake has occurred in the title documents in that the improperly formulated document did not embody the intentions of the parties ‘0 It also noted that for a party to avail itself of reformation the party would need to prove mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence ””

19 Additionally, a part of § 155 is the doctrine of scrivener 5 error ‘2 The equitable doctrine of scrivener 5 error permits a court to ignore a mistake in a written document when there is clear and convincing evidence that a mistake has occurred and that the mistake does not reflect the intent of the parties '3 As comment (a) of § 155 points out mutual mistake and scrivener 5 error are largely the same thing [c]ases granting relief under the circumstances covered by this Section often speak of scrivener 3 errors or similar terms that point up the mistake as one of transcription of the parties actual agreement '4

1110 A quitclaim deed conveys only the interest or estate which the grantor possesses at the time, and a grantor cannot convey more than he actually owns ‘5 Reformation of a deed or contract

7 [d at *18 21 RESTAThMENT(SEC‘OND)OF CONTRACTS§ 155 (1981) “ RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 155 (1981) 9 Cent Along (0 Civil No 2014 0096 VI 2017 L: S Dist LEXIS 47755 (D V1 Mai 30 2017) ”’Id at *20 H [d at *20 21 (citing Bennmglon Foods L L C t S! C1011: Renaissance (11021;) L L L P , Civil Action No 06 154, 2010 U S Dist LEXIS 39038 at *15 (D V I Apl 20 2010)) 1 Dawes v Celtam Uncle] 11111815 at L10) (1’3 ofLondon CASE NO ST 2015 CV 0000637 2017 VI LEXIS 34 at *13 14 (V I Supei Ct Feb 24 2017) ( Plaintiff calls for the Court to adopt a common law rule allowing the Court to modify a contract upon a showing by paiol evidence of a drafting mistake in order to allow the contiact 5 language to reflect the flue intent of the signatories The doctrine of scrivener s enox is articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 155 ) ‘3 Dobm v Cook (In 1e 8210!”) Bankruptcy Case No 16 204842017 Bankr LEXIS 1031 at *9 (Bankl \I J 2017) (quoting Int I Uman v Mznuta El 1e N Am Inc 980 F 2d 889 901 (3d C11 1992)) '4 RESTATEMEM (SECOND) OF COVTRACTS § 155 cmt a (1981) '3 Van Rensselaez v Keame} 52 U S 297 322 (1851)( A deed of this charactei puiports to convey and is understood to convey nothing more than the interest ox estate of which the grantor is seized 01 possessed at the time' and does not operate to pass or bind an interest not then in existence )‘ see also Legal Mawms Nemo dat quad non habet BLACK S LAW DICT10NARY (1 1th ed 2019) ( No one gives what he does not have no one tiansfers (a right) that he Clmstoplt Keith Massac v Government of the Virgin Islands, e1 ((1 VI Super 45 Case 1V0 ST 2020 CV 00278 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 5 0f 7

also may be achieved through stipulation of the parties to the deed or contract ’6 V I CODE ANN tit 33, § 2362 delineates the duties of the Recorder of Deeds namely that she shall record every transfer of real property interests she shall transmit this record to the Lieutenant Governor and the Tax Assessor and every five (5) years she shall conduct an assessment of the cadastral and land records ‘7

III ANALYSIS

1111 This case presents the novel issue of whether the Government may subsequently seek reformation of a deed by stipulation although it is not a party involved in the original conveyance

1112 Massac purchased land in 2006 Included in the deed purportedly by a scrivener 8 error was a plot Parcel No 537 3 This parcel, however had already been conveyed previously It is axiomatic that the grantor could not grant possession of that parcel, as the grantor herself was not in possession of it The Government rejected the deed as provided by Massac and Massac sought an order that the Government attest a copy of the original quitclaim deed and record it Now both parties seek the Court 3 intervention to reform the deed upon discovery of the scrivener 3 error because the original grantor is deceased

1113 The parties point to a map in the possession of the Public Surveyor OLG Map No D9 5484 T94, which ostensibly shows that the grantor was not in possession of Parcel No 537 3 at the time of the conveyance ‘8 The parties do not dispute this or any other point, both merely seek reformation of the deed to accurately describe what was conveyed However, the Government was not a party to the original conveyance of the quitclaim deed rather it is an uninvolved third party 19

1114 The Court may reform an agreement at the request of one party to the conveyance upon a showing of mutual mistake so long as the reformation does not harm the interests of third parties unfairly Here one party has requested reformation and no third parties will be unfairly affected The original party granting the deed can no longer be relied on to help reform the deed, as she is

does not possess [] Accmding to this maxim no one gives a better title to property than he himself possesses A Variation of this maxim is Nemo (lat qzu non hubet (no one gives who does not have) ) ‘6 See Foley t Southpo; t Mano; C ontalescent (II 561 A 2d 978 979 (Conn App Ct 1989) ( The parties ultimately stipulated to a judgment that the court Kline J rendered orally as follows What I 11 do is right now enter by stipulation, 1 11 enter a reformation of the contract and the only reformation will be an extension of time f01 the down payment ); VISSISSIppI Indus f0) Blll7d\ Jackson 95 So 2d 109 111 (Miss 1957)( By stipulation it was agreed that as between the complainant and Mrs Sproles he was entitled to a reformation of the deed of trust but that the question of priority of liens of the judgment creditors and Worth Jackson were submitted to the court and it was fu1‘tl’161 stipulated and agreed that the judgments in question are all regular and valid ) Lawson v Schuchcndt 363 P 2d 90 n 1 (Wyo 1961) ( Defendants in the complaint requested reformation of the note and mortgage to show the date that the installments were due The matter was settled by stipulation and is not here in issue ) I733VIC §2362 ’3 The Court has not been piovided with this map or any other documentation mentioned within the Stipulation To Consent Judgment ‘9 The Government is involved insofar as the Recorder of Deeds must record the deed It was not involved in the transfer, however CImstoplt Keith Massac v Government of the Virgin Islands, e! (1/ VI Super 45 Case No ST 2020 CV 0027s Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 6 of 7

now deceased To reform a deed the Court must be convinced by clear evidence that both parties were mistaken as to the effect or contents of the agreement The Lieutenant Governor s Office is responsible for recording all property deeds, mortgages, personal liens tax liens, and other miscellaneous documents 70 The statute does not provide a role, however, for the Lieutenant Governor 5 Office to act as a substitute for a party in a real property conveyance The Government or Massac still needs to provide clear and convincing evidence that both conveying parties were mistaken as to the effect or contents of the agreement

1115 Massac and the Government have stipulated there was a scrivener 5 error in the deed To reform the contract under the scrivener s error doctrine, the Court must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that inclusion of the previously conveyed parcel was not the intent of both parties to the comeyance in this case, Massac and the grantor As with reformation based on mutual mistake the Court has not been presented with clear and convincing evidence that inclusion of the already conveyed parcel even while not legally possible was an error and not the Intent of the parties

1116 Massac has an interest in having his deed properly reflect what he actually owns; the Government has an interest in having accurate documents filed with its offices; the public at large has an interest in definitive and en orless documentation of property conveyances Reformation in this case will not affect the rights of anyone else Yet while it is a legal maxim that aequas e1 rorzbm medetur equity rectifies errors the Court cannot ascertain how it can proceed to reform the erroneous deed under the above mentioned equitable doctrines and precedent21 It is diseommodious that the Court cannot merely reform the deed in a case such as this where reformation would not affect any third party and would also be beneficial to both parties and society However the Court is bound to prior rulings and to stretch the rules of equity here to allow the Government to stand in for the grantor may establish a precedent that could be used inequitably in the future 77 The minor convenience here pales in comparison to the potential consequences of abuse

1117 Reformation by mutual mistake may only be accomplished by clear and convincing evidence that both parties to the conveyance were mistaken as to the contents or effects of the writing Relatedly reformation under the scrivener 5 error doctrine may only be accomplished by clear and convincing evidence that the error does not reflect the intent of both the parties to the conveyance To reform by stipulation, the proper party in this case, the estate of the grantor must be involved, and the Government cannot act as her proxy Absent such a stipulation or the production of clear and convincing evidence under the doctrines of mutual mistake or scrivener s error, the Stipulation To Consent Judgment must be disapproved

1118 Accordingly it is hereby

’0 Recordel ofDeeds, GOV TOF THE V I (last visited Apr 12 2021) https //ltg gov vi/departments/iecorder of deeds/ see also 33 V I C § 2362 which piovides for the duties of the Recorder of Deeds 7' Legal Ma‘CIms Aeqzutas enorzbus medetzn BLACK S LAW DICTIONARY (l lth ed 2019) ( Equity rectifies enors ) ’7 Equity is not vague and uncertain but has boundaries and prescribed limits Legal Marlins Aeqmtas non vaga [ ] BLACK 5 LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed 2019) Clmstoph Keith Massac v Government of the Vlfglll Islands, et a! VI Supel 45 Case No ST 2020 CV 00278 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 7 of 7

ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant s Stipulation To Consent Judgment filed March 26 2021 is DISAPPROVED and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be directed to counsel of record

DATED Aprilfi 2021 {Zigéé WY) 22Wu32 DENISE M FRANCOIS Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

ATTEST

TAMARA CHARLES Cler h Court

BY 04% (mm D INA D DOA VA1\ 91 C Gun Clerk Supervisor / /m