King v. Mahogany Run Development Corp.

23 V.I. 274, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16001
CourtDistrict Court, Virgin Islands
DecidedAugust 11, 1987
DocketCivil No. 1984/206
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 V.I. 274 (King v. Mahogany Run Development Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
King v. Mahogany Run Development Corp., 23 V.I. 274, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16001 (vid 1987).

Opinion

O’BRIEN, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a case of the administrative tail, in the person of the real property tax assessor, attempting to wag the legislative dog. In it we must decide whether the tax assessor can, in the face of a statute to the contrary, refuse to make a separate assessment on an individual condominium unit, and instead, because of an administrative practice, lump the unit for tax purposes with other condominium units still held by the grantor of the apartment. Because we hold that he may not, we will order him to apportion the taxes appropriately.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs, Vivian King and Judith King Zebedee (“Kings”) received a warranty deed to Unit 514U Mahogany Run Condominium, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (“the unit”) on November 25, 1986 from Lovenlund Resort Associates (“LRA”).1

When the Kings sought to record their deed, the government refused to issue a tax letter.2 Its refusal was based on a tax lien maintained against the unit and five other apartments owned by the unit’s grantor, LRA. The assessor was operating under the procedure that he may refuse to issue separate assessments until there has been a first conveyance of an apartment via an individual deed.

The Kings then moved for a temporary restraining order requiring the government to issue a tax letter. We granted their motion after a hearing by order dated April 13, 1987. This matter is now before us on motion for a permanent injunction. Because the Kings seek an affirmative injunction ordering the tax assessor to issue their unit a separate tax bill, we view their motion as one for mandamus-like relief.

II. DISCUSSION

5 V.I.C. § 1361(a) provides the jurisdictional basis upon [276]*276which this Court may grant mandamus-like relief.3 A plaintiff must have a clear right to the relief sought; there must be a plainly defined and peremptory duty to do the act in question; and there must be no other adequate remedy available. Richardson v. Virgin Islands Housing Authority, 18 V.I. 351, 356 (D.V.I. 1981) (citations omitted).

A. Statutory Right to a Separate Assessment

Section 921 of Title 28, the Virgin Islands Condominium Act clearly states the Kings’ right to a separate assessment on their unit.4 On this we see no room for doubt.

B. Tax Assessor’s Duty

In addition, 33 V.I.C. § 2403 requires the tax assessor to assess each parcel of real estate separately.5 We do not see how the assessor has any statutory authority to refuse to do so because of internal office practice.6 In any case, we do not believe it is [277]*277necessary to determine whether the conveyance to the Kings of their unit was the first conveyance of that apartment by individual deed. It is obvious to us that upon the Kings’ acquisition of title, the apartment became entitled to a separate assessment pursuant to 28 V.I.C. § 921.

C. The Kings’ Available Remedies

Absent the issuance of mandamus-like relief, the Kings have no recourse against a recalcitrant government. This is not a case where one must exhaust the administrative relief by appealing to the Board of Tax Appeals since the statute mandates such a route only after an unfavorable assessment.7 In this case there is no assessment from which to appeal. No other remedy at law is available to the Kings.

III. CONCLUSION

The statutes being clear that the Kings’ apartment shall be assessed separately, and that the tax assessor has an affirmative duty to issue such assessment, and there being no other available remedy to the Kings, we will grant their motion for mandamus-like relief and order the tax assessor to issue a separate assessment on Unit 514U Mahogany Run Condominium.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on motion of the plaintiffs for mandamus-like relief against the involuntary plaintiff. Having filed a memorandum opinion of even date herewith, and the premises considered, now therefore it is

ORDERED:

THAT the plaintiffs’ motion for mandamus-like relief be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED; and further

[278]*278THAT the tax assessor shall in conformity with 28 V.I.C. § 921 and 33 V.I.C. § 2403 issue a separate assessment on Unit 514U Mahogany Run Condominium forthwith.

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

Related

Brow v. United States District Court
121 F. App'x 443 (Third Circuit, 2005)
Havensight Hills Estates Property Owners Ass'n v. Brown
40 V.I. 96 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 1999)
Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority v. Smith
762 F. Supp. 661 (Virgin Islands, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 V.I. 274, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-mahogany-run-development-corp-vid-1987.