Glen George Selkridge v. Ermin Oretha Greene and David Bryon Johnson, Jr.

CourtSuperior Court of The Virgin Islands
DecidedAugust 11, 2021
DocketSX-20-CV-761
StatusUnpublished

This text of Glen George Selkridge v. Ermin Oretha Greene and David Bryon Johnson, Jr. (Glen George Selkridge v. Ermin Oretha Greene and David Bryon Johnson, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of The Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Glen George Selkridge v. Ermin Oretha Greene and David Bryon Johnson, Jr., (visuper 2021).

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX GLEN GEORGE SELKRIDGE PLAINTIFF, Civil No SX 2020 CV 761

v COMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE ERMIN ORETHA GREENE AND DAVID CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER M BYRON JOHNSON JR DEFENDANTS

Appearances Charlotte S Sheldon, Esq McChain Hamm & St Jean Christiansted, U S Virgin Islands For Plamtzfi"

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

1} 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff Glen George Selkridge’s (hereinafter

“Plaintiff ) motion for default judgment, filed on April 16, 2021

BACKGROUND

1[ 2 On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Ermine Oretha Greene

(hereinafter “Greene”) and Defendant David Byron Johnson, Jr (hereinafter “Johnson” and

together with Greene, ‘Defendants’ ) to quiet title to the following property No 20 Building B

The Towers Condominium Rem Parcel No 2 Estate Contant, 7A Southside Quarter, St Thomas,

U S Virgin Islands (hereinafter “Property”) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged (i) “Plaintiff was

the sole owner of the [Property] (Compl 1| 5), (ii) “Plaintiff inadvertently conveyed the property

by Warranty Deed to Defendants on October 14, 2016” (Compl fl 6), (iii) “Plaintiff‘s intent was

to keep the property in his name and to add the Defendants as additional grantees, who would then

receive the property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship upon his death (Compl 1]?), (iv)

‘ Plaintiff misunderstood the language of the Warranty Deed that was drafted and executed it Selkrzdge v Greene et al SX 2020 CV 761 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER 3b“ Page 2 of 9

conveying the property entirely to Defendants” (Compl 1| 8), (v) “Defendants have refused to

convey the property back to Plaintiff (Compl 1 9) and (vi) “Defendants are improperly

withholding the property that was inadvertently conveyed to them (Compl 11 10) Plaintiffs

complaint did not set forth counts 111 separate numbered paragraphs with separate de81gnation of

the specific names of each count in the pleadings as required under Rule 8 of the Virgin Islands

Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “Rule 8”) ' However, Plaintiff acknowledged in the caption

that it is a complaint to quiet titie Plaintiff sought for (i) a judgment that Plaintiff is the fee simple

owner of the Property, (ii) a judgment that Defendants do not have any right, title or interest in the

Property (iii) attorney’s fees and costs and (iv) further relief as the Court may deem proper The

following documents were attached to the complaint as Exhibit 1 a copy of a warranty deed, dated

October 14 2016 (hereinafter “October 14, 2016 Warranty Deed”) a copy of a document titled

‘ Affidavit for exemption from stamp taxes according to Title 33 Section 128 of the V I Code,”

and a copy of a document titled “Real property tax clearance letter ” According to the October 14,

2016 Warranty Deed, Plaintiff, as the grantor, granted and conveyed “all of his right, title and

interest” in and to the Property to Defendants, as the grantees

1| 3 On February 23 2021 Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default A copy of the complaint

a copy of the proofs of service for Defendants, and a copy of an affidavit of counsel was attached

to Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C respectively

According to the proofs of service, Defendants were served on January 20, 2021 at 9315 Bardeen

‘ Rule 8 mandates that “a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) short and plain statement of the grounds for the coun's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief because this is a notice pleadmg jurisdiction and the pleading shall be set forth in separate numbered paragraphs as provided in Rule 10(b), with separate designation of counts and defenses for each claim identified in the pleading, and (3) a demand for the reliefsought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief V I R Civ P 8(a) (emphasis added) Selkrldgev Greene 9! a1 sx 2020 CV 761 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER M Page 3 of 9

Way, Iowa Colony, Texas in the following manner “[b]y delivering a true copy of the summons

and complaint and leaving with Jane Doe who is known to be the co resident and a competent

household member over 14 years of age residing therein” and “[s]aid premises is recipients usual

place of abode within the state ”2 (Motion for Entry of Default Exhibit B ) On March 16, 2021,

default was entered against Defendants

1] 4 On April 16, 2021 Plaintiff filed this instant motion On June 3 2021 the Court entered

an order whereby the Court noted

Upon review of the file, it has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff did not provide, with its previous motion for entry of default or instant motion for default judgment, any evidence showing that neither Defendant Greene nor Defendant Johnson is a minor, an incompetent person, or a person subject to the provisions of the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act of 2003, or an affidavit stating such There are additional rules to serving a minor or an incompetent person,2 and a person subject to the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act of 2003 is protected from being sued while in active military service 3 As such, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to remedy the deficiency and reserve ruling on Plaintiff‘s instant motion

2Title 5 V I C § 111 provides § 111 Service on infant or incompetent person In the cases referred to in Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service shall be made as follows (1) Upon an infant, by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the infant personally, and also to his father, mother, or guardian, or if there is none within the Virgin Islands then to any person having the care or control of such infant, or with whom he resides, or in whose service he is employed

2 Rule 4 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “Rule 4”) governs service of process Rule 4(t) provides that “Where 5 V I C § 4903 or other applicable law provides for the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a person located outside the Virgin Islands, the provisions and procedures of Title 5 V l C Chapter 503 shall be followed including, but not limited to, the procedures for service and the filing of proof of service set forth in 5 V I C § 4911 V I R CIV P 4(f) Title 5 V l C § 4911 provides that [w]hen the law of this territory authorizes service outside this territory, the service, when reasonably calculated to give actual notice, may be made (1) by personal delivery in the manner prescribed for service within this territory ” Title 5 V I C § 491 l(a)(l) Here, Defendants were served in a manner prescribed for service within the U S Virgin Islands See Rule 4(e)(2) (“Unless law of the Virgin Islands provides otherwise, an individual other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed may be served in the Virgin Islands by doing any of the following (2) leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone ofsuitable age and iscretion who resides there ”) Selkrtdge v Greene, et a1 SX 2020 CV 76] Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER m Page 4 of 9

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

S & S SERVICES, INC. v. Rogers
35 F. Supp. 2d 459 (Virgin Islands, 1999)
King v. Appleton
61 V.I. 339 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2014)
Mills-Williams v. Mapp
67 V.I. 574 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Glen George Selkridge v. Ermin Oretha Greene and David Bryon Johnson, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glen-george-selkridge-v-ermin-oretha-greene-and-david-bryon-johnson-jr-visuper-2021.