For Publication
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
JANET V JULIEN ) S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Appellant/Defendant ) Re Super Ct Civ No 8X 2020 RV ) 00003 (STX)
v ) ) VICTOR S MATTHEW ; Appellee/Plaintiff ) )
On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of St Croix Superior Court Judge Hon Douglas A Brady
Argued November 14 2022 Filed March 26 2024
Cite as 2024 VI 15
BEFORE RHYS S HODGE Chief Justice MARIA CABRET Associate Justice and IVE ARLINGTON SWAN, Associate Justice
APPEARANCES
Janet Jalien St Croix U S VI Pro Se,
Victor Matthew St Croix U S V l Pro Se Julie" 1 Matthew 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 2 of 22
OPINION OF THE COURT
SWAN, Associate Justice
111 Appellant Janet V Julien (‘ Julien ) challenges the Superior Court Appellate Division 3
affirmation of a Magistrate Division judgment declaring that she owes appellee Victor S Matthew
( Matthew”) $1,706 for the balance of the cost for work he completed in remodeling her kitchen
For the reasons elucidated below, we affirm the Appellate Division’s order '
I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
112 In April 2019, Julien decided to remodel the kitchen and to retile the floors in the dining
room and kitchen in her home in St Croix, U S Virgin Islands After researching options, Julien
selected cabinets from a Home Depot store in North Carolina and floor tiles from Home Depot in
St Croix In J une 2019, while shopping at the Home Depot store in St Croix, Julien learned that
Matthew is an inexpensive contractor The Home Depot employee who recommended Matthew to
Julien also provided Julien with Matthew’s contact information Subsequently, Matthew visited
Julien’s home to discuss the work she wanted completed
113 Ultimately, Matthew quoted Julien a price of $6,000 to complete the remodel However,
Matthew required Julien to make a deposit before he would commence work Accordingly, Julien
gave Matthew a $2,000 check After obtaining the $2 000 deposit, Matthew sent Julien
photographs of cabinets he had previously completed and emailed her a copy of a document stating
the work he would perform In the email, Matthew delineated the principal areas of work as the
' Pursuant to rule changes promulgated on June I, 2019, the Virgin Islands Superior Court no longer has an Appellate Division and reference to that division in this opinion is made merely to preserve prior terminology Therefore final orders or judgments from the Magisttate Division are merely appealable to the judges of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands SeeVI Super Ct R 322 Julten t Matthen 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 3 0f 22
removal and installation of kitchen cabinets, backsplash, granite bar top, granite countertop, and
floor tiles The email also stated that Julien was responsible for purchasing all materials for the
remodel project
114 In the last week of June 20l9, Matthew commenced the remodeling project by removing
the old kitchen cabinets, backsplash, and countertops On June 29, 2019, Matthew wanted to start
tiling the kitchen floor However, Matthew told Julien that the kitchen floor was uneven To correct
the problem, Matthew informed Julien that he needed to cover the kitchen floor with a layer of
concrete ready mix To obtain the concrete, Matthew traveled with Julien to Home Depot in St
Croix where she purchased five bags of concrete and a one gallon bottle of concrete bonding After
returning to Julien’s home, Matthew poured the concrete on Julien’s kitchen floor
1|5 On July 15, 2019, Matthew received a second installment payment of $2,000 and began to
tile the kitchen floor, which remained uneven (presumably because the procedure Matthew
employed to level the kitchen floor was unsuccessful) J ulien claimed that at no time did Matthew
inform her that the kitchen floor remained uneven
116 At some juncture during the remodeling work, Matthew began cutting J ulien’s new kitchen
cabinets When Julien saw what Matthew was doing, she ordered him to stop, but he persisted
because the uneven kitchen floor made it necessary to cut the bottom of the cabinets so they would
lie properly on the floor However, when the new appliances arrived, Julien claimed that the
cabinets over the refrigerator were too low, and she had to hire another contractor to install them
and to replace the granite countet‘top which cracked when Matthew admittedly installed it
incorrectly Julian v Maltln w 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 4 of 22
117 Finally, Matthew, who Julien said was not a licensed electrician, relocated an electrical box
that was inside one of Julien’s old kitchen cabinets Matthew advised Julien that the electrical
box’s location inside the cabinet was a fire hazard and, therefore, illegal Thus, Matthew surmised
the electrical box needed to be relocated to another location According to Matthew, the cost to
relocate the electrical box was normally more than $1,000, but he agreed to relocate Julien’s
electrical box for $850 However, although she purchased a new electrical box so Matthew could
relocate the box, Julien claimed in her appellate briefthat she never authorized Matthew to relocate
the electrical box Ultimately, Julien became frustrated with Matthew’s performance and perturbed
by the money she expended to remedy his mistakes Therefore, she opted to terminate her contract
with Matthew before the remodel project was completed
118 On February 10, 2020, Matthew filed a small claims complaint against J ulien for the unpaid
balance of the contract price $2,850 Julien counterclaimed for $5,000 for emotional anguish and
for the money she spent to rectify Matthew’s alleged mistakes
119 On March 10, 2020, the Magistrate Division held a hearing on Matthew’s complaint
During the proceeding, Matthew explained the relationship between himself and Julien, which he
claimed was exacerbated by Julien’s frequent excuses for not purchasing necessary materials for
the pI’OJCCt and her decision to not allow him to complete the job In response, Julien presented the
court with invoices, canceled checks, and testimony to demonstrate that she found Matthew’s work
unacceptable and, therefore, exasperating; she testified that she paid different workmen to correct
Matthew’s numerous mistakes Moreover, J ulien also claimed to have witnesses who could
substantiate her claims and discuss Matthew’s unprofessional behavior However, the court Julian Matthew 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 5 of 22
declared that those witnesses were unnecessary because they would not add new evidence to the
record Therefore, the court refused to allow Julien to call them
1|10 Ultimately, the court declared that its duty was to assess whether Matthew was entitled to
damages (balance of the contract price) because of the agreement he had with Julien Moreover,
the court also opined it had to simultaneously ascertain whether Julien was entitled to damages
because of the costs she incurred as a result of correcting Matthew s frequent job mistakes
Regarding the electrical work, the court concluded that Julien sanctioned the relocation of the
electrical box which, according to the court, was supported by Julien’s purchase of a new electrical
panel box The court concluded that Julien was entitled to $150 the price she paid to correct
Matthew s substandard electrical workmanship
111 l Concerning the cabinetry, the court concluded that Matthew’s cutting of the cabinets was
not exceedingly unusual, as Matthew explained during the proceeding Specifically, the court
referenced the unevenness of floors as a reason why cutting the cabinets might have been
necessary Despite Matthew’s efforts to stabilize the floor, the court said it was apparent that
Matthew’s attempts to level Julien 3 kitchen floor were unsuccessful, if he still needed to cut the
cabinets The cout’t concluded that it could not hold Matthew liable for cutting the cabinets because
he adhered to the standard to which the parties agreed a clearance of 71 inches
1112 Pertaining to the cracked granite countertop, the court stated that Matthew admitted to
cracking the countertop as he installed it However, the court also acknowledged that Matthew
could have fixed the countertop but he was never afforded the opportunity to do so because Julien
refused to let him finish the remodeling work The court stated that Julien only claimed that the Julien 1 Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ N0 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 6 of 22
cracked countertop was never repaired Therefore, the court assigned a modest value of $200 for
the damaged countertop because there was no evidence in the record that established its value
1113 Regarding the backsplash, the court concluded it was installed incorrectly because
Matthew failed to seal the limestone tile and it became discolored when he applied grout to it
However, the court further stated that Julien opted to replace the tile although Matthew said he
could have cleaned it Therefore, the court assigned a nominal value of $200 for the replaced tile
because there was no evidence in the record that established the cost to replace it
1114 Regarding the granite bar top the court said that Matthew admitted that he failed to
complete it Julien provided evidence to verify that she paid another contractor a $275 deposit and
an additional $319 to have it installed The court concluded that these amounts resulted in a total
of $594 in costs
1115 Finally, the court reconciled the amounts owed to both Matthew and Julien The court
opined that Julien was entitled to $150 for the electrical work, $200 for the cracked granite
countertop $200 for replacing the backsplash and $594 for the bar top which totaled $1 144 Next
the court concluded that Matthew was entitled to $2,850 for the balance of the remodeling and the
electrical work Lastly, the court subtracted Julien s damage award from Matthew’s damage award
and adjudged that Julien still owed Matthew $1 706
1H6 Following entry of the Magistrate 5 March 10, 2020 amended judgment, Julien filed a
notice of appeal in the Superior Court Appellate Division on March 17, 2020
1H7 On March 21, 2022, the Appellate Division entered an order that affirmed the Magistrate
Division’s judgment In the order, the Superior Court proclaimed that it had reviewed all evidence Julient Matthew 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 7 of 22
in the record, including the transcript fi'0m the March 10, 2020 hearing Following the review, the
court declared that it found no error in the magistrate’s factual findings nor legal conclusions
Therefore, the Appellate Division affirmed the Magistrate Division’s 2020 decision
1] 18 On April 13 2022 Julien perfected the instant appeal
[I JURISDICTION
1|l9 “The Supreme Court [has] jurisdiction over all appeals arising from final judgments, final
decrees, and final orders of the Superior Court ’ 4 V l C § 32(a) An order that disposes of all
claims submitted to the Superior Court is considered final for the purposes of appeal ’ Jung v
Razz 59 V I 1050 1057 (V I 2013) (citing Matthew v Herman 56 V I 674 677 (V I 2012)) In
this case, the Superior Court Appellate Division’s March 21, 2022 order disposed of all claims
submitted for adjudication Therefore, the order is final and we exercise jurisdiction over Julien’s
appeal
III STANDARD OF REVIEW
1|20 We review the trial court’s factual findings for clear error and exercise plenary review over
its legal determinations Thomas v People 63 V I 595 602 03 (V I 2015) (citing Simmonds v
People 53 V I 549, 555 (V I 2010)) Moreover, ‘ [w]hen reviewing decisions of a judge of the
Appellate Division of the Superior Court, we typically consider the underlying rulings made by
the magistrate only to the extent that they were adopted or affirmed by the judge of the Appellate
Division ” Maso v Morales, 57 V I 627, 632 (V l 2012) However, “[i]n most cases, we will
decline to directly review the magistrate's rulings, out of consideration for the ‘unique relationship’
between the Magistrate [Division] and Appellate Division[] of the Superior Court, and traditional Juhen v Matthew 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 202’ 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 8 of 22
appellate practices ” Id Furthennore, an order from the Appellate Division affirming a final
judgment, order, or decree of the Magistrate Division is a final order fi'om which an appeal lies
Moore v Walters 61 V I 502 506 (V I 2014) Finally the purpose of the Small Claims Division
is to do substantial justice between the patties V I SMALL CLAIMS R 1(d) 2 3 See Greene v Merck
Mkt No ST 2015 SM 292 2015 WL 13894874 at *2 (V I Super Ct Oct 5 2015) (unpublished)
(‘ The purpose of the small claims statute is “to permit individuals with small claims access to the
court in a simple inexpensive manner and without the need to retain counsel ’)
IV DISCUSSION
1l21 On appeal, Julien asserts three central issues First, she contends that the Superior Court
Magistrate Division impermissiny shified the burden of proof from Matthew to her Second, she
argues that the Magistrate Division erred in refusing to allow her to call witnesses Third, J ulien
contends the Magistrate Division erred in awarding Matthew damages for his electrical work
However, before we address Julien s allegations, we will review the law of contracts in the Virgin
Islands and briefly evaluate the legitimacy ofJulien’s notice of appeal Accordingly, we commence
the analysis with a brief review of Julien’s deficient notice of appeal
1122 Rule 4(c) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure, in pertinent part, states that
a notice of appeal shall identify the order appealed from and the issues to be presented on appeal 4
2 ‘ Construction These rules shall be construed to implement the simple, speedy, and inexpensive trial of actions in the Small Claims Division, and in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law V I SMALL CLAIMS R 1(d)
3 4 V I C § 123(4) empowers the Magistrate Division to hear small claims cases See 4 V I C 9 123(4)
“ “The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal and, even if the notice is electronically filed, it shall contain their physical addresses and telephone numbers, shall designate the judgment, order, or part thereof appealed from and the reason(s) or issue(s) to be presented on appeal An appeal shall not be dismissed Julian \ Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 9 of 22
Here, Julien’s April I3, 2022 notice of appeal lacks reference to the order being appealed or the
issues to be presented on appeal Although we have consistently stated that pro se litigants enjoy
considerable latitude regarding the structure and contents of court documents and the procedure to
file them, we remind all litigants that this Court’s rules should be reviewed prior to submitting
court documents to ensure filings comport with those stipulations See Marsh Monsanto v
Clarenbach 66 V I 366 376 (V I 2017)( [I]t is our policy to give pro se litigants greater leeway
in dealing with matters of procedure and pleading ”), compare Serzeux v Schneider Clmzc, 74
V I 429 435 (V I 2021) (‘ [P]ro se litigants need [to] follow court procedures and rules Pro se
litigants are still expected to comply with the rules , and a pro se litigant's apparent ignorance
of the rules of the Court does not provide good cause to excuse failure to comply with those
rules ”) Usually, as we have observed, “[w]hen a notice of appeal fails to designate an order [being
appealed], that order is not properly before this Court for consideration V1 Taxz Ass'n v V 1
Port Auth 67 V I 643 673 (V I 2017) (citing Dessout v Brm 66 V I 308 & n 2 (V I 2017))
Nonetheless, in this case, Matthew has not claimed any prejudice arising from Julien’s deficient
notice of appeal, and the issues on appeal have been briefed, as well as the question whether the
Appellate Division was correct in affirming the Magistrate Division’s March 10, 2020 amended
judgment Under these circumstances, applying our established precedent, and the policy favoring
lenity in pro se matters, it is appropriate for this Court to exercise its discretion to consider the
appeal, notwithstanding the deficient notice of appeal See, e g , V 1 Tax: Ass'n, 67 V I at 674
(failure to identify Appellate Division's order with specificity did not preclude the Virgin Islands
solely for defects of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is gztfrwise clear from the notice, but any omission of matters of substance may be grounds for sanctions ” APP P R Julieni Matthew 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 10 of 22
Supreme Court from addressing the appellant’s claim that such order should be reversed, where
both parties briefed the issue of whether that order should be affirmed or reversed and the appellee
claimed no prejudice arising from the failure to specify the order in the notice of appeal) Thus,
we proceed to evaluate the merits of this appeal
123 In the Virgin Islands, a contract is a promise that is either stated in oral or written words
(express contract), or a promise that can be inferred wholly or partially by conduct (implied
contract) Essential to the creation of a contract are the elements of offer and acceptance, and
acceptance may be inferred through conduct Peppertree Terrace v Williams 52 V I 225, 241
(V l 2009) “Additionally, an enforceable contract also requires a bargained for legal benefit
or detriment, commonly known as consideration,5 and a manifestation of mutual assent A
manifestation of mutual assent or a meeting of the minds requires that the two parties that intend
to form a contract are in agreement to the same terms[, which] must be proven objectively ”
Williams v Umv ofthe VI No ST 00 CV 148 2019 WL 301345 at *2 (V I Super Ct Jan 18
2019) (unpublished) (citations omitted) See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 18 (1981)
(“Manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange requires that each party either make a promise or
begin or render a performance ”) Hawkeye Commodzty Promotions Inc v Miller, 432 F Supp 2d
822, 845 (N D Iowa 2006) (‘ In addition to offer and acceptance, another essential element of a
binding contract is consideration ”); Ecore International Inc v Downey, 343 F Supp 3d 459, 487
(E D Pa 2018) (“To establish the existence of an agreement one must show that (1) both parties
5 (1)To constitute consideration, a performance or a retum promise must be bargained for (2) A performance or return promise is bargained for if it is sought by the promisor in exchange for his promise and is given by the promisee in exchange for that promise (3) The performance may consist of (a) an act other than a promise or (b) a forbearance, or (c) the creation, modification, or destruction of a legal relation (4) The performance or return promise may be given to the promisor or to some other person It may be given by the promisee or by some other person RESTATEMENT(SECOND) 0F CONTRACTS§ 71 (1981) Julian v Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 11 of 22
have manifested an intention to be bound by the terms of the agreement; (2) the terms of the
agreement are sufficiently definite to be specifically enforced; and, (3) there is mutuality of
consideration ); see also Tourism Indus Inc v Benjamm, No 3601979, 1982 WL 1035049, at
*2 (V I Terr Ct May 27, 1982) (unpublished) (explaining that adequate consideration entails an
exchange of promises rather than the performance of the promises); Dame] v Shamar Pemberton
& Carly Enters No ST 2019 CV 00157 2020 WL 7979165 at *2 (VI Super Ct Dec 9 2020)
(unpublished) (“[C]onsideration ‘requires a performance or a retum promise that has been
bargained for ”’)
1124 A contract breach occurs when one or multiple contracting parties fail to perform duties
established by the contract Creative Minds LLC v ReefBroadcastmg Inc , No ST 1 1 CV 13],
2014 WL 4908588 at *8 (V 1 Super Ct Sept 24 2014) (unpublished) See RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 235 (1981) (‘ When performance of a duty under a contract is due any
non performance is a breach ”), Key Bank Nat 1 Ass n v Components by John McCoy Inc , No
06 Civ 13164 (SC) 2008 WL 4865989 at *13 (S D N Y Nov 6 2008) (unpublished) ( [T]he
failure of a party to perform its obligations under a valid and binding contract constitutes a
breach ’) (citations omitted) To establish a breach of contract claim under Virgin Islands law, a
plaintiff must prove that a contract existed, that there was a duty created by that contract, that
such duty was breached, and that he suffered damages as a result ” Chapman v Cornwall, 58 V I
431 437 (VI 2013) See McGrath v Lzberty Mat Fzre Ins Co No 2 19 CV 36 JCM 2019WL
9100192, at *2 (D Nev May 13, 2019) ( To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must
allege (1) the existence of a valid contract (2) that plaintiff performed or was excused from
performance (3) that the defendant breached the contract; and (4) that the plaintiff sustained Julian | Matthew 2024 V] IS 5 Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 12 of 22
damages”) (citations omitted); Flemmg Steel Co v Jacobs Engmeerzng Group Inc , 373
F Supp 3d 567, 582 (W D Pa 2019) (“In order to state a claim for breach of contract under
Pennsylvania law, Plaintiffmust show ‘( 1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms,
(2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3) resultant damages ”’) (citations omitted)
1|25 Importantly, a contract breach can be material or minor Creatzve Minds, 2014 WL
4908588, at *6 A material breach is significant or essential if it deprives the injured party of the
benefit he or she reasonably expected to obtain from the contract and affects that party’s decision
making ability regarding two options (1) whether to permit the breaching party to cure, or (2) to
forego his or her own reciprocal obligations under the contract 1d at *7, see also RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 241 Material breaches excuse the non breaching party 3 performance
and allow for a myriad of remedies 1d A minor breach only provides for nominal damages Id
(citations omitted) See Unzted States ex rel Virgzma Beach Mech Servzces v SAMCO Const Co ,
39 F Supp 2d 661 670 (E D Va 1999) ( When a party does not fully complete its contract the
non breaching party's remedies turn on whether that failure to perform constitutes a material or a
minor breach A minor breach may allow the aggrieved party to recover damages or a set off
against the breaching party, but it does not excuse that aggrieved party from performing ”); Frank
Lloyd Wright Foundatzon v Kroeter 697 F Supp 2d 1 l 18 1 133 (D Ariz 2010) ( [T]he victim of
a material or total breach is excused from further performance ’ under the contract, while “the
victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while collecting damages
for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him ”) (citations omitted)
1|26 Notably, the purpose of contract damages ‘ is [to] give the injured party the benefit of the
bargain and to the extent possible put him in the position he would have been in bad the contract Julten 1 Matthew 2024 V1 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 13 of 22
been performed ” Tourism Indus , 1982 WL 1035049, at *2 Specifically, when a party breaches a
contract, the non breaching party is entitled to damages Key Bank, 2008 WL 4865989, at *13 See
Rivera v Sharp N0 2008 0020 2021 WL 2228492 at *15 (D V I June 1 2021)( It is hombook
law that when one party to a contract commits a material breach, the non breacher has the option
of either continuing the contract and suing for partial breach, or terminating the agreement in its
entirety ) (citations omitted) Island Block Corp v Jefferson Constr Overseas, 349 F 2d 322,
326 (3d Cir 1965) (finding under Virgin Islands law that [w]hi1e plaintiff‘s failure to make the
required shipments was a material breach which would have warranted cancellation of the contract,
defendant nevertheless continued to accept plaintiff‘s performance In these circumstances
defendant is not relieved of its contractual obligations; rather its remedy is in damages by way of
recoupment or counterclaim )(citations omitted)
1127 However, if both parties breach the contract, the court may preclude recovery for either
party or offset the recovery ofone party with the recovery of the other party because of their mutual
breach 6 See Westmghouse Electric Corp v Garret Corp 601 F 2d 155 158 (4th Cir 1979)
(“[U]nder general contract law, courts have held that in some instances where both parties are
at fault (or in default) neither may recover Whether this doctrine is described as failure of
consideration, failure to satisfy a condition precedent, or mutual breach of contract, it is clear that
in proper circumstances a court may refuse to allow recovery by either party to an agreement
because of their mutual fault, which in contract terms might be more properly described as mutual
6 [l]n the absence of provisions in the contract to the contrary where both parties thereto are in default or on a breach thereof Wherein both have participated neither one may recover damages therefor from the other Furthermore, where both parties are in equal fault, money or property advanced in furtherance of the contract cannot be recovered On the other hand, in some circumstances where both parties have been guilty of breach of contract each may be liable in damages to the other 173 C J S Contracts 9 758 (2022) Julian 1 Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 14 of 22
default )(citations omitted)‘ compare Nguyen v Harris N0 ST 06 CV 253 2009 WL 10742371
at *3 (V I Super Ct Mar 13, 2009) (unpublished) (explaining that when parties are found to have
breached a contract, damages are apportioned in accordance with the liability of each party)
(citations omitted) Finally, “[a] fimdamental rule of damages applicable to breach of contract
cases is that the party injured by the breach is limited in recovery to the loss actually suffered; he
is not entitled to be placed in a better position than he would have been if the contract had not been
broken Hamilton v Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, N0 CIV 18 1240 C, 2019 WL
4228892 at *3 (W D Okla Sept 5 2019) (citations omitted)
1|28 Here, Julien and Matthew initially negotiated orally for Matthew to renovate Julien’s
kitchen in exchange for a $6,000 contract price However, following a preliminary assessment of
Julien’s residence, Matthew sent a formal acceptance via email ofJulien’s oral offer It is axiomatic
that ‘ [a]n offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify
another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it ”
Amber Chemical Inc v Rezlly Industrzes Inc No l 06 CV 06090 OWW SMS 2007 WL
512410 at *4 (E D Cal Feb 14 2007) (unpublished) (citations omitted) In this case Julien s
pre contract negotiations with Matthew ripened into an offer because of her willingness to have
Matthew renovate her abode Consequently, Matthew’s email to Julien, which contained the scope
of the work to be performed as well as the contract price, represented his assent or acceptance of
Julien’s terms, which were memorialized in the email J A 3 See McDermott Intern Inc v
Industrial Rtsklnsurers No Civ A 01 3027 2003 WL 22928802 at *5 (E D La Dec 9 2003)
(unpublished) (“A contract is an agreement between two parties whereby one party makes an offer
and the other party accepts that offer, thereby establishing a concurrence in understanding the Juliet: t Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page IS of 22
terms ”) (citations omitted) In terms of consideration, Julien promised to pay Matthew the $6,000
contract price and gave him a $2,000 deposit Therefore both Matthew and Julian assented t0 the
terms of their agreement which demonstrated that they intended to be bound by it Accordingly, a
valid contract existed between the parties
1129 However, at some juncture during the performance of the contract, Matthew made
numerous mistakes including not sealing the limestone tiles for the backsplash and damaging the
granite counter top These mistakes constituted a material breach of the parties‘ contract because
they involved work essential to the agreement between Matthew and Julien and they affected
Julien’s decision making, in terms of her choice as to whether to permit Matthew to cure the
mistakes, or to not satisfy her own obligations under the contract with Matthew At that time, Julien
could have terminated the contract or proceeded with the contract and sought damages Yet, J ulien
failed to pursue either option See Rivera v Sharp N0 2008 0020 2021 WL 2228492 at *10
(D V I June l, 2021) (‘ A party to a contract may waive a condition precedent to its performance,
or a breach of the contract's provisions, by conduct manifesting a continued recognition of the
contract's existence afier learning of the breach or failure of the condition, such as by continuing
to perform or accepting performance under the contract and receiving the benefit of it [B]y
choosing to proceed following the nonoccurrence of a condition or a breach, the party who would
otherwise have been excused may broadly be said to have waived the failure of the condition or
the breach There are few principles of contract law better established, or more uniformly
acknowledged, than the rule that when a contract not fully performed on either side is continued
in spite of a known excuse, the right to rely on the known excuse is waived; in turn, the defense Julien! Matthew 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 16 of 22
based on the excuse is lost and the party who would otherwise have been excused is liable if it
subsequently fails to perform ’) (citations omitted)
1|30 Although Julien ultimately terminated the contract with Matthew, she only did so after
acknowledging Matthew’s numerous mistakes without penalty Moreover, Julien waited until
Matthew had completed the majority of the remodeling work before she chose to terminate the
contract with him and discharge him from the job Furthermore, after she terminated the contract
with Matthew, Julien refused to pay him the balance of the contract price despite Matthew’s
substantial job performance Under those circumstances, Julien kept the benefit of Matthew’s work
without paying him Therefore, Julien also materially breached the contract Accordingly, because
both parties breached the contract, the Magistrate Division did not err when it apportioned liability
between Julien and Matthew Similarly, the Appellate Division also did not err when it affirmed
the Magistrate Division’s March 10, 2020 amended judgment
113] We now turn to the claims Julien asserts in her appellate brief namely the Magistrate
Division’s impermissible shifting of the burden of proof to her, the Magistrate Division’s failure
to allow her to call witnesses, and the Magistrate Division’s award of damages to Matthew for
Julien 8 failure to pay him for his electrical work To reiterate, we ordinarily only examine the
basis for 3 Superior Court Magistrate Division’s judgment when the Appellate Division has
adopted or affirmed the trial court 8 reasoning Because the Appellate Division expressly stated in
its March 22, 2022 order that it reviewed the trial record and because it ultimately affirmed the
Magistrate Division’s ruling, we will therefore review the Magistrate Division’s rationale to
address Julien s contentions However, because the Magistrate Division is not bound to apply rules
of evidence in a Small Claims case and the fact that Julien s arguments implicate certain Julian t Matthew 2024 V l 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 17 of 22
evidentiary rules, we will only briefly examine Julien’s contentions for the sake of completeness
See V I SMALL CLAIMS R 4(b)(5) 7
1132 On appeal, Julien asserts that the Magistrate Division impermissiny shifted the burden of
proof to her 3
1] 33 ‘ In the Virgin Islands, the burden of proof in civil cases is governed by title 5, section
740(5)9 of the Virgin Islands Code Wilkinson v Wilkmson 70 V I 901 914 15 (V I 2019)
Essentially, 5 V l C § 740(5) states that civil cases in the Virgin Islands must be proven by a
preponderance of evidence standard Id See also The Village V 1 Partners In Recovery v Gov I
of the V I 39 V I 109 113 (V I 1998) (explaining that the plaintiff normally has the burden of
proof in civil cases), However, when a defendant in a breach of contract claim desires to offset
damages, the burden of proof shifis t0 the defendant Entergy Servzces Inc v Fed Energy
RegulatOIy Comm n No 17 1251 2021 WL 3082798 at *10 (D D C July 13 2021) See Cowen
Co v Houck Mfg Co 249 F 285 288 (2nd Cir 1918) ( During the progress of the trial it often
happens that a party gives evidence tending to establish his allegation, sufficient it may be to
establish it prima facie, and it is sometimes said the burden of proof is then shified All that is
7 “Conduct of the Ttial The court shall conduct the trial in such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law, and shall not be bound by the statutes or rules governing practice, procedure, pleadings, or evidence, except those statutes and rules relating to privileged communications and the swearing of parties and witnesses All proceedings shall be recorded, either electronically or stenographically V I SMALL CLAIMS R 4(b)(5) 3 In her appellate brief, Julien cites former Superior Court Rule 64 for the proposition that a Magistrate hearing a small claims matter must conduct the proceeding in accordance with substantive law and the magistrate in her case failed to do so because he incorrectly shifted the burden of proof to her Although we acknowledge that the purpose of the Small Claims Division is to do substantial justice, we note that Superior Court Rule 64 is repealed and has no bearing on the Magistrate Division 5 execution of a small claims case 9 The jury, subject to the control of the court in the cases specified in this title, are the judges of the effect and value of evidence addressed to them, except when it is thereby declared to be conclusive They are however, to be instructed by the court on all proper occasions that (5) 1n civil cases the affirmative of the issue shall be proved, and when the evidence is contradictory the finding shall be according to the preponderance of evidence; that in criminal cases guilt shall be established beyond reasonable doubt 5 V I C § 740(5) Julien \ Matthew 2024 VI 15 S Ct Civ N0 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 18 of 22
meant by this is that there is a necessity of evidence to answer the prima facie case, or it will prevail
. . .”).
11 34 The term ‘burden of proof' incorporates two distinct burdens the burden of persuasion
and the burden of production The burden of production is a party's duty to introduce ‘evidence
sufficient as a matter of law to enable a rational fact finder to find that particular proposition of
fact is true’ and to find in favor of the producing party ’ Chzlds v Gladstone, No 17CV408 JAH
(BLM) 2019 WL 4849170 at *2 (S D Cal Oct 1 2019) (unpublished) (citations omitted) See
Bruner v Ofiice ofPers Mgmt 996 F 2d 290 293 (Fed Cir 1993) ( The burden of production
also called the burden of going forward, is initially upon the person with the burden of proof, and
generally requires the production of sufficient evidence to support a finding in favor of that person
The burden of production then shifts to the other party, who must, in turn, produce enough
evidence to raise a question of material fact ’) (citations omitted) Finally, to satisfy the burden of
production, litigants may employ direct evidence like witness testimony or testimony from an
individual with direct knowledge of the situation, or they may utilize indirect evidence like
circumstantial evidence from which reasonable inferences can be drawn Burke v People, 60 V I
257 263 (V I 2013)
1135 Here, the court initially questioned Matthew about the case because he was the plaintiff
who had the burden of proof J A 46 48 In response, Matthew provided testimony about his issues
with Julien’s remodel contract Subsequently, the court proceeded to question Julien about
Matthew’s assertions and her independent contentions concerning the contract to renovate her
kitchen and dining room J A 48 50 In response, Julien provided the court with testimony and
demonstrative evidence, including invoices and canceled checks that verified she had paid multiple Julten l Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 19 of 22
workmen to correct Matthew’s numerous mistakes J A 50 70 Accordingly, because Matthew, as
plaintiff, provided evidence in the form of testimony before Julien attempted to refute Matthew’s
evidence with additional testimony and exhibits, we are unpersuaded that the Magistrate Division
impennissibly shified the burden of proof to Julien As previously stated, the purpose of the Small
Claims Division is to do substantial justice, which the court did when it first questioned Matthew
to compel production of sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim before it turned to Julien to
rebut Matthew’s contentions Therefore, we conclude that the Magistrate Division did not
impermissiny shift the burden of proof to Julien
1136 Next, Julien alleges that the Magistrate Division erred when it refused to allow her to call
witnesses Under Virgin Islands Evidence Rule 70] , lay witnesses may only testify about matters
rationally related to the witness s perception and helpfiil in understanding the witness’s testimony
or to ascertain a fact issue V I R EVID 701 However, Rule 701 precludes a lay witness’s
testimony about scientific, technical, or specialized matters outside the witness s scope of
knowledge [(1 Moreover, the ability of a lay witness to testify pursuant to Rule 701 is tempered
by Virgin Islands Evidence Rule 403 '0 Essentially, Rule 403 allows a court to refuse the admission
of evidence it deems to be unbeneficial, prejudicial, time consuming, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence Thus, a litigant 3 right to call witnesses is not unfettered and is premised on
a witness’s ability to aid the litigation as well as conserve important Judicial resources
1B7 Moreover, pursuant to V1 Small Claims Rule 4(b)(5), "[t]he court shall conduct the trial in
such manner as to do substantial justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive
'0 “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following unfair prejudice; confusing the issues; misleading the jury; undue delay, wasting time; or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence ” V I R EVID 403 Julian 1 Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ N0 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 20 of 22
law, and shall not be bound by the statutes or rules governing practice, procedure, pleadings, or
evidence, except those statutes and rules relating to privileged communications and the swearing
of parties and witnesses "
1138 Here, although the court opined that the testimony of Julien’s witnesses was unnecessary
because it would not add anything new to the trial record, we remind the Magistrate Division that
the right to call witnesses is an inherent aspect of our system of justice See McDermott v
Manhattan Eye Ear & Throat Hosp 203 N E 2d 469 472 73 (N Y 1964) (explaining that in
civil cases, it is a well established right to call any witness, even an adverse party, if his testimony
is relevant to the issues in the case) Thus, while the Magistrate was free to determine that the
testimony of Julien’s witnesses was irrelevant or cumulative, we believe that the best course of
conduct in this matter was for the Magistrate to allow Julien’s witnesses to testify before
concluding their testimony was inapplicable or cumulative evidence in the case
1139 More importantly, the purpose of the Small Claims Division is to do substantial justice
Previously, we noted that “substantial Justice contemplates more than the interests of the defendant
[it] also contemplates the plaintiff‘s interests ” Spencer 12 Navarro, No 2007 69, 2009 WL
1078144 at *3 (V 1 Apr 8 2009) (unpublished) Additionally because the role of the judge in a
small claims action is to achieve substantial justice, he or she must do so even if it means that a
liberal reading of the facts or law would afford relief to a pro se small claims litigant which would
ordinarily not be available to a pro se or other litigant in the Superior Court’s Civil Division Dams
v Turner 71 VI 1185 1189 (D V1 2018) Therefore Superior Court magistrates should afford
litigants some latitude in presenting and explaining their case Julten i Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Court Page 21 of 22
1|40 Here, the magistrate opined that there was no need for Julien to call witnesses despite
Julien s ability to call them to offer witness testimony to support her case J A 10| 103
Undeniably, the magistrate’s refusal to hear the testimony of Julien’s witnesses was an error that
potentially circumvented the purpose of the small claims division to render substantial justice for
all litigants Regardless, the magistrate provided a sufficient foundation for his small claims
decision Accordingly, there is no need to remand this matter merely on the issue of the ability of
litigants to call witnesses in a small claims case because we remind the magistrates 0f the Superior
Court of the need to allow litigants to offer witness testimony in support of their claims Any other
conclusion potentially thwarts, impedes, and obstructs the purpose of the division of small claims
to render substantial Justice between litigants
1|4l Finally, J ulien argues that the Magistrate Division erred in awarding Matthew damages for
his deficient electrical work We will not belabor this point Functioning as fact finder, the
magistrate was in the best position to observe the parties and assess their credibility See Moore v
Walters 61 V I 502 508 (V l 2014)( Th[e] explicit determination of credibility by the magistrate
cannot be overturned if a rational person could agree with the assessment of the trial court, as is
the case here (emphasis added» Rahhal v Clarke N0 SX 2021 SM 00027 2022 WL 2918305
at *2 (V I Super Ct July 20, 2022) (‘ Because cases in the Magistrate Division are decided without
a jury, the magistrate court hears the testimony and considers the evidence before finding the facts
and applying the law And when the law is unsettled, the magistrate court must determine what
law should apply before finding what facts are relevant ) The court thoroughly questioned both
parties about each of their areas of contention Ultimately, the magistrate believed Matthew, ruled
in his favor on the issue of the inferior electrical work, and apportioned liability accordingly Julian v Matthew 2024 V I 15 S Ct Civ No 2022 0023 Opinion of the Conn Page 22 of 22
Therefore, we find no error in the Magistrate Division’s damages award to Matthew for his
electrical work See Valermo v Manmng, 68 V I 276, 300 (V I 2018) ( ‘The Magistrate Division
is the trial court in all Magistrate Division cases ’)
V CONCLUSION
1|42 Therefore, we affirm the Superior Court Appellate Division’s affirmation of the Magistrate
Division’s March 10, 2020 amended judgment finding no error in the trial court 3 offset ofJulien’s
damages fiom Matthew’s damages because we recognize that the goal of the Superior Court Small
Claims Division is to do substantial justice, which we firmly believe the court accomplished here
Dated this 0% day 0/2qu 2024 221nm cam“ 2
WE ARLIN8§ON SWAN Associate Justice
ATTEST VERONICA J HANDY ESQ Clerk of the Court
eputy Clerk
D t Ma{ch 21a, 2021