Queen's Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Trond Osthaug

CourtSuperior Court of The Virgin Islands
DecidedSeptember 19, 2022
DocketSX-2014-CV-355
StatusPublished

This text of Queen's Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Trond Osthaug (Queen's Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Trond Osthaug) 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
Queen's Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Trond Osthaug, (visuper 2022).

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

QUEEN'S RIDGE CONDOMINIUM Civil No. SX-2014-CV-355

ASSOCIATION, INC., ACTION FOR DEBT AND

PLAINTIFF, FORECLOSURE

v. CITE As: 2022 v I s U P E R _O

TROND OSTHAUG,

DEFENDANT.

Appearances:

Semaj I. Johnson, Esq.

KA Rames, P.C.

Christiansted, U.S. Virgin Islands

For Plaintiff

Jeffrey Moorhead, Esq.

Christiansted, U . S . Virgin Islands

For Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WILLOCKS, Administrative Judge

,r I THIS MATTER is before the Court for review sua sponte.

BACKGROUND

,r 2 On August 28, 2 0 1 4, Plaintiff Queen's Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. (hereinafter

"Plaintiff') filed a complaint against Defendant Trond Osthaug (hereinafter "Defendant") in an

action for debt and foreclosure. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged: (i) Plaintiff is a condominium

association, (ii) Defendant is an owner of Unit No, 1 1 3 of the Queen's Ridge Condominium in St.

Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (hereinafter "Property") and is subject to "the Declaration of

Condominium dated March 30, 1990," (ii) Defendant "has failed and refused to the mandatory

assessments applicable" and "is in violation of the Condominium law and Bylaws," (iv) Defendant

"was notified of his delinquency via certified mail dated September 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 , " (v) Defendant "was Queen 's Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Osthaug

SX-2014-CV-355

Memorandum Opinion and Order o scree YD Page 2 of IO

further notified of his delinquency via the filing of a lien with the Virgin Islands Record of Deeds

dated October 1 3 , 2 0 1 3 , " and (vi) "Defendant is currently in arrears in the amount o f $ 5 5 , 1 2 8 . 7 5 as

of June 30, 2014." (Comp!.) In tum, Plaintiff sought for: () a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and

against Defendant for "all additional sums which plaintiff may incur to protect the security of the

property," (ii) an order "directing that the property be sold at Marshal's sale in accordance with the

law" with the proceeds "applied first to the priority mortgage regarding the property," (iii) an order

"directing that [Defendant] surrender possession of the property," (iv) an order "of costs to

[ P ] laintiffin this action including reasonable attorney's fees, and (v) an order "awarding [P]laintiff

such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and just." (Compl.)

'II 3 Defendant filed an answer in response. In his answer, Defendant stated that he has been

paying towards the deficiency and disputed the amount claimed.

ii 4 On March 1 3 , 2 0 1 7 , Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, Defendant

filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply thereafter.

5 On July 1 7 , 2 0 1 7 , Plaintiff filed a request for ruling on its motion for summary judgment.

'II 6 On February 2, 20 I 8, the Court entered an order whereby the Court noted that Defendant's

opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment stated that mediation is needed and ordered

the parties to mediation. On May 25, 2018, a mediation report was filed whereby the mediator

indicated that a mediation conference was held on May 1 6 , 2 0 1 8 and that this matter was recessed

1 until June 7, 2 0 1 8 for the next mediation conference.

7 On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for ruling on its motion for summary judgment.

The Court must point out that, while the May 25, 2 0 1 8 mediation report indicated that the second mediation conference

was scheduled for June 7, 2018, no further mediation report was filed in this matter. Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiffs

August 22, 2022 motion for ruling on its motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that this matter was not resolved by mediation. Queen s ' Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Osthaug

Memorandum Opinion and Order o22 scree D Page 3 of IO

DISCUSSION

8 The Court must note at the outset that Plaintiff's motion failed to include a statement of

undisputed facts in support of his motion as required under Rule 56 of the Virgin Islands Rule of

2 Civil Procedure (hereinafter "Rule 56"). See V.I. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(l)-(2) (requiring the movant to

include a statement of undisputed facts supported by affidavit(s) or citations identifying specifically

the location(s) of the material(s) in the record relied upon regarding such fact, and the opposing

party to respond to the statement of undisputed facts). The Court must further note that, while

Defendant filed an opposition, Defendant did not address the merits of Plaintiff's motion; Defendant

simply argued that it was premature and should be denied due to noncompliance with the mediation

3 requirement under Title 28 V.I. C. § 53 l(b). The Court also notes that Defendant has had ample

opportunity to move for leave to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In

fact, despite the fact that Plaintiff has filed two separate request/motion for ruling on its motion for

Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment motion before March 3 1 , 2017, the effective date of the Virgin Islands

Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore, filed the motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

which applied to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands through former Superior Court Rule 7. However, the Virgin

Islands Rules of Civil Procedure now "govern . . . proceedings in any action pending on the effective date of these rules

or amendments, unless: (A) the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands specifies otherwise by order; or (B) the Superior

Court makes an express finding that applying them in a particular previous-pending action would be infeasible or would

work an injustice." V.I. R. CIV. P. 1-1(c)(2). Here, the Supreme Court has not directed that the Virgin Islands Rules of

Civil Procedure should not govern motions for summary judgment. Funhermore, the Court does not find that applying

the new rules would be infeasible or work an injustice. At first glance, Rule 56 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil

Procedure may initially appear to be more stringent that its federal counterpart due to its requirement of having the

moving party file a statement of undisputed facts and therefore would work an injustice. However, upon review, there

is evidence that a party moving for summary judgment on March 1 7 , 2 0 1 7 was required to include an itemization of

undisputed facts, and thus, applying the new rules would not work an injustice. See Vanterpool v. Go't o f the V.I, 63

V.I. 563, 583 n . 1 0 (V.I. 2 0 1 5 ) ; see also, Martin v. Martin, 54 V.I. 379, 388-89 (V.I. 2010); FED. R. CIV. P. 56, Notes of

Advisory Committee on 20 IO amendments.

In his opposition, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is premature and should be denied.

Defendant made the following assenions in support of his argument: (i) Plaintiff is in violation of Title 28 V.1. c. 531(b) because the parties "have not conducted the required mediation and no good faith effort has been made by

Plaintiff to resolve the issues involved in this dispute." (Opp. I); and (ii) "If the Court proceeds to decide summary

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

Related

Williams v. United Corp.
50 V.I. 191 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2008)
Martin v. Martin
54 V.I. 379 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2010)
Guardian Insurance v. Khalil
63 V.I. 3 (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2012)
Vanterpool v. Government of the Virgin Islands
63 V.I. 563 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Queen's Ridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Trond Osthaug, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queens-ridge-condominium-association-inc-v-trond-osthaug-visuper-2022.