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 #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 1 of 8

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 #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 2 of 8

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 #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 3 of 8

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 #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 4 of 8

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 the crossclaims of Wayne Chesterfield
(“Chesterfield”).
In March of 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. Shortly
afterwards, Smith filed an amended complaint (“First Amended
Complaint”).
Neither the original complaint nor the First Amended
Complaint named an individual defendant. Rather, both actions
were brought against “[a]ll persons claiming a present or future
interest, in Estate 13, Friis, Bab Friis No.1, Estate 14, John’s
Folly, Estate 15, Concordia A, Coral Bay Quarter, St. John,
United States Virgin Islands EXCEPT The United States of
America, National Park Service.” ECF Nos. 1, 4.
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 5 of 8

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 6
Smith moved for leave to file a second amended complaint on
July 18, 2011. Smith attached a proposed second amended
complaint (the “July 18 Proposed Complaint”) to her motion. The
proposed complaint named more than thirty additional defendants,
including Chesterfield. Smith did not allege the citizenship of
those defendants. On August 9, 2011, before the Court could rule
on Smith’s motion, the Clerk of Court issued more than thirty
summonses for the defendants Smith sought to add. On September
14, 2011,
On September 15, 2011, the Court received a waiver of the
service of summons form from Chesterfield dated August 21, 2011.
On October 5, 2011, Chesterfield filed a document purporting to
be an answer to the July 18 Proposed Complaint. That document
read:
COMES NOW, Wayne Chesterfield appearing Pro Se (at
present) and as a cross-claimant against all person
claiming a present or future interest in the
remainder of Estate 15 A Concordia, St. John United
States Virgin Islands. In response to Plaintiff, Ida
Smith, Pro Se, complaint and in compliance with
Virgin Islands Code Title 28 § 373 the nature of my
claim is the remainder of Estate 15 A Concordia, 50
acres more or less as deeded to me by my aunt
Claudina Viola Joshua. The location of Estate
Concordia, St. John United States Virgin Islands is
given in the Geographic Dictionary of the Virgin
Islands of the United States by James William McGuire
Cartographic Engineer, United States Coast and
Geodetic Survey, Member of United States Geographic
Board and on map T3783 the original government survey
done 1919 as 80 by 330 yards in size, on a sandy
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 6 of 8

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 7
isthmus joining Ramhead Peninsula to mainland of St.
John; only salt bearing pond on this end of island.
Hence, Concordia Bay, Estate, and Hill, are all
locally denominated Saltpond. Hence, also, this may
be designated, Concordia Saltpond, to which I claim
an undivided interest of 50 acres more or less. I
have attached a copy of a National Park Service Map
which delineates Estate Concordia.
ECF No. 158.
On February 29, 2012, the Court dismissed the action for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Smith then moved for
reconsideration and filed a notice of appeal. On February 8,
2013, the Court granted Smith’s motion for reconsideration and
reopened the case. The Court then designated the case as a
suspense matter pending the Third Circuit’s resolution of the
appeal. On July 1, 2013, the Third Circuit dismissed Smith’s
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Subsequently, on October 17, 2013, the Magistrate Judge
granted Smith leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On
November 1, 2013, Smith filed her amended complaint (the “Second
Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint is the
operative complaint in this action. Chesterfield did not answer
the second amended complaint.
Ordinarily, a crossclaim is brought in a pleading that
responds to a complaint that is properly before the Court. See
generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 13. Also, in the normal course,
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 7 of 8

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 8
crossclaims are brought against a specific defendant or
defendants. Here, Chesterfield has not named the defendants
against whom he brings his crossclaims. Moreover, Chesterfield’s
crossclaims were raised in response to Smith’s July 18 Proposed
Complaint. As this Court has explained, Smith’s July 18 Proposed
Complaint was a “legal nullity,” and thus never properly before
the Court. See Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future
Interest in Estate 13, No. 2011-41, 2016 WL 5720541, at *2
(D.V.I. Sept. 29, 2016).
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that no later than 3:30 P.M. on March 23, 2017,
Wayne Chesterfield shall file a brief that will show cause why
his crossclaims should not be dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that the trial in this matter, previously scheduled
for March 23, 2017, is RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00
A.M. on March 30, 2017.
S\
Curtis V. Gómez
District Judge
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 596 Filed: 03/17/17 Page 8 of 8