Smith v. All persons claiming a present or future Interest

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
IDA SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL PERSONS CLAIMING A PRESENT OR
FUTURE INTEREST IN ESTATE 13,
FRIIS, LINDA V. SMITH-FRANCIS,
WILLIAM E. SMITH, ELOISE V. SMITH-
HENDRICKS, BAB FRIIS NO. 1, PAUL
HOFFMAN, JANE HOFFMAN-WALKER,
ELEANOR ADAMS HOFFMAN, MAXWELL
ADAMS HOFFMAN, GLORIA FRANCOIS
MCGOWAN, DAVID A. BORNN AS TRUSTEE
TO THE GAF TRUST ESTATE 14 JOHN’S
FOLLY EXCLUDING ALL HEIRS AT LAW,
ESTATE 15 CONCORDIA A, CORAL BAY
QUARTER, ST JOHN UNITED STATES
VIRGIN ISLANDS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, LAND RESOURCES DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, STANLEY
SELENGUT, WILLIAM B. POPPELTON,
LORRAINE A. POPPELTON, KEVIN M.
WALSH, MARIA K. STURATIS, SCOTT E.
WILMOSKI, CHARLES M. PERDUE,
MONICA PERDUE, JOZSEF NEMETH,
NANCY NEMETH, FRED S. PATTERSON,
MARGARET D. PATTERSON, JOHN R.
PERGOLIZZI, TREASURE VIEW LLC,
GEORGE PILLORGE, DEBORAH PILLORGE,
SCOTT L. HARTSHORN, CLAUDETTE C.
HARTSHORN, HEINZ G. FISHER, LINDA
G. BURDET TRUSTEES OF THE HEINZ G.
FISHER TRUST, DONALD DURANTE,
SAFIA B. DURANTE, CRAIG E.
MITCHELL, ALAN MARTIN KAUFMAN,
RACHELLE KAUFMAN, JEFFREY J.
McCRAVE, ANN McCRAVE, DOROTHY K.
JANOSKO, WILLIAM R. KINCER, SUSAN
B. KINCER, SUSAN GREER
LITTLEFIELD, WAYNE CHESTERFIELD,
MONIQUE FRANCOIS, PEDRITO
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil No. 2011-41
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 1 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 2
FRANCOIS, SALT POND VISTA LLC,
V.I. JOSEPH PALMINTERI, CARRIE
GLENN, MARC KAVE, EMILY J.
BRATTON, RICK HATHAWAY, RENE A.
SERVANT aka RENE H. SERVANT, MARIE
THERESE L. SERVANT, LORI JANE
SNACK, BRIAN K. WALDEN,
MINISTER ISHMAEL R. MUHAMMED,
MICHAEL CARPER, REUBEN WHEATLEY,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPEARANCES:
Ida Smith
New York, NY
Pro se plaintiff,
Ronald W. Sharpe, USA
Jason Cohen, AUSA
St. Thomas, VI
For the United States National Park Service,
Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq.
Hodge & Francois
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Paul Hoffman; Jane Hoffman Walker; and David A. Bornn,
Trustee of the GAF Trust,
Rafael F. Muilenburg, Esq.
Morrisette & Muilenburg
St. John, U.S.V.I.
For William E. Smith; Eloise V. Smith; Deborah Pillorge;
Claudette C. Hartshorn; Scott L. Hartshorn; Linda V. Smith-
Francis; and George Pillorge,
Gloria McGowan
Pro se,
Wayne Chesterfield
Pro se,
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 2 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 3
Monique Francois
Pro se,
Pedrito Francois
Pro se,
Joseph Palminteri
Pro se,
W. Mark Hillsman, Esq.
Law Offices of Norman P. Jones, P.C.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Carrie Glenn; Lori Jane Snack; William B. Poppelton;
Lorraine A. Poppelton; Maria K. Sturaitis; Charles M.
Purdue; Monica Purdue; Salt Pond Vista, LLC; Heinz G.
Fisher; Linda G. Burdet, Trustee of the Heinz G. Fisher;
Safia B. Durante; Donald Durante,
Marc Kave
Pro se,
Emily J. Bratton
Pro se,
Rick Hathaway
Pro se,
Rene A. Servant
Pro se,
Marie Therese Servant
Pro se,
Brian K. Walden
Pro se,
John H. Benham, III, Esq.
Watts, Benham & Sprehn, P.C.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Stanley Selengut,
Mark D. Hodge, Esq.
Hodge & Francois
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Kevin M. Walsh and Treasure View LLC,
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 3 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 4
Scott E. Wilmoski
Pro se,
Jozef Nemeth
Pro se,
Nancy Nemeth
Pro se defendant.
Fred S. Patterson
Pro se,
Margaret D. Patterson
Pro se defendant.
John R. Perqulizzi
Pro se,
Terryhill Enterprises, II
Pro se,
Missouri LLC
Pro se,
Craig E. Mitchell
Pro se,
Michael E. Fitzsimmons, Esq.
Stryker, Duensing, Casner & Dollison
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Alan Martin Kaufman,
Ann McCrave
Pro se,
Jeffrey J. McCrave
Pro se,
William R. Kincer
Pro se,
Susan B. Kincer
Pro se,
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 4 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 5
Susan Greer Littlefield
Pro se,
Kurt Shore
Pro se,
Suzanne L. Shore
Pro se,
Dorothy Janosko (also known as “Dorothy K. Janoko”)
Pro se.
ORDER
GÓMEZ, J.
Before the Court are Ida Smith’s two motions seeking
summary judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In March 2011, Ida Smith (“Smith”) initiated this action to
determine boundaries and to quiet title to various parcels of
property in St. John, United States Virgin Islands.
Subsequently, Smith filed a first and second amended complaint.
Smith essentially seeks a determination the boundary lines in
Estate 14 John’s Folly pursuant to 28 V.I.C. §§ 372-76 and to
quiet title to the “remnant lands” in her name. (See ECF No. 268
at ¶ 1.)
In Smith’s motions for summary judgment, the only evidence
that she offers to show that she owns the land in question are
her own affidavits.
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 5 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 6
The affidavit attached to Smith’s first motion for summary
judgment asserts:
1. That [she is] an inheritable heir at law to the
remnant lands with Estate 14 John’s Folly[; and]
. . .
4. [t]hat [her] ancestors held patents to lands with
Estate 14 John’s Folly which are secured by Treaty
Series No. 629, 39 Stat. 1706 by which . . . [she]
claim[s] . . . [her] interest as a descendant.
ECF No. 385-1, at ¶¶ 2, 4.
In the affidavit attached to her second motion for summary
judgment, Smith asserts that:
2. [She is] the descendant, inheritable heir at law,
to ancestors, Henry and Johanna James (Dudley v.
Meyers 422 F. 2d 1389 (1970), Letitia Petersen
Benjamin and Christopher Benjamin, James Sandford
Petersen, Christophena Williams, William Abbott,
Christopher James Sr., Christopher James, Jr.,
Joseph James, Ana Susanna James, Frederick Ludwig
Hensen and Henrietta Jensen, Herman and Arimenta
Meyers, Evelina Meyers Matthias, Edwin W. Matthias,
Inez 0. Matthias Hodge, Jacob Matthias, Herman
Meyers Jr., Cassandra Brathwaite, Antonio Hodge, to
name a few, in possession of the parcels of land
within Estates 13 Friis,14 John's Folly and 16
Mandahl, as owners, in fee simple, pursuant to Treaty
Series No. 629 (39 Stat. 1706)[; and]
3. [that she] claim[s] [her] private rights to
properties on St. John, Virgin Islands, namely
within Estate 13 Friis, Estate 14 John's Folly and
Estate 16 Mandahl, by Treaty Series No. 629 (39 Stat.
1706) as an inheritable heir at law.
ECF No. 477-1, at ¶¶ 2, 3.
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 6 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 7
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Hersh v. Allen Products Co., 789
F.2d 230, 232 (3d Cir. 1986).
The movant has the initial burden of showing there is no
genuine issue of material fact, but once this burden is met it
shifts to the non-moving party to establish specific facts
showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Gans v. Mundy, 762
F.2d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 1985). The non-moving party “may not rest
upon mere allegations, general denials, or ... vague statements
....” Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3d Cir. 1991).
“[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient
evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a
verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
“[A]t the summary judgment stage the judge's function is
not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Id. In making this determination, this Court draws all
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 7 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 8
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Bd.
of Educ. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 850 (2002); see also Armbruster
v. Unisys Corp., 32 F.3d 768, 777 (3d Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
Section 372, title 28 of the Virgin Islands Code provides
that “where any dispute or controversy exists, or may hereafter
arise, between two or more owners of adjacent or contiguous
lands in the Virgin Islands, concerning the boundary lines
thereof, or the location of the lines dividing such lands,” any
party to the dispute may bring an action to determine the
boundary lines. 28 V.I.C. § 372. Therefore, Smith may only bring
an action to determine boundary lines in Estate John’s Folly if
she is an owner of land adjacent or contiguous to land in Estate
14 John’s Folly. See id.; see also Newfound Mgmt. Corp., Gen.
P'ship of Newfound P'ship v. Sewer, 885 F. Supp. 727, 771
(D.V.I. 1995) (explaining that relief under § 372 is only
available “when a controversy between owners exists” (emphasis
in original), aff'd, Newfound Mgmt. Corp. v. Lewis, 131 F.3d 108
(3d Cir. 1997)). Furthermore, a Court may only quiet title in a
party’s name if that party has established ownership of the land
in question. See Dudley v. Meyers, 422 F.2d 1389, 1394-95 (3d
Cir. 1970) (“[I]t is a settled rule that in an action to quiet
title the plaintiffs must rely upon the strength of their own
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 8 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 9
title and not upon the weakness of that of the defendants.”).
Therefore, even if Ida Smith could establish the existence of
the claimed “remnant lands,” she must also establish that she
owns those lands.
Smith’s claim is premised on her status as an “inheritable
heir at law.” (See, e.g., ECF No. 476 at 2 (“The only matter
remaining for resolution is the equitable relief of quieting
title, 28 USCS 2409a, in Plaintiff, Ida Smith to the remnant
lands within Estate 14 John’s Folly by which she is an
inheritable heir at law governed by the convention between
Denmark and the United States, Treaty Series No. 629 (39 Stat.
1706).”).) The Court understands Smith to assert that she
inherited her right to the property by reason of intestacy.
In her affidavits, Smith merely asserts that she is an
inheritable heir at law and the descendant of certain
individuals. Even assuming that those individuals at one point
owned the property at issue, Smith has provided no evidence of
any specific facts showing that the relevant individuals passed
away without disposing of the property by will or other
instrument such that the property would pass to her by law. “An
affidavit that is essentially conclusory and lacking in specific
facts is inadequate to satisfy the movant's burden.” Maldonado
v. Ramirez, 757 F.2d 48, 51 (3d Cir. 1985) (internal quotations
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 9 of 10

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 10
omitted). As such, Smith has not met her initial burden of
establishing that there is no dispute of material fact and that
she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the
Court will deny Smith’s motions for summary judgment.
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment docketed at
ECF Numbers 384 and 476 are DENIED.
S\
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ
District Judge
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 526 Filed: 09/29/16 Page 10 of 10