Alexander v. Alexander
2016 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 35
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2016Background
- Austin Alexander signed and recorded a quitclaim deed on June 9, 2008, purporting to convey his St. Thomas parcel to his son Anduze; the recorded deed bore only one subscribing witness signature.
- The deed process involved a notary (Constantin) and Constantin’s wife as the lone witness; two additional signatures were later added to an affidavit page but the deed itself lacked a second subscribing witness when recorded.
- In August 2011 Austin sued to rescind the conveyance, alleging incapacity and undue inducement; in 2014 he added a claim that the deed failed to meet the statutory two-witness requirement.
- Austin moved for summary judgment in 2015 seeking a declaration that the deed was void ab initio for noncompliance with 28 V.I.C. § 42(a); Anduze’s opposition and attempted cure (adding the notary’s signature seven years later and submitting an affidavit) were filed late and partly stricken.
- The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for Austin, concluding the deed was ineffective because it lacked two subscribing witnesses; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding a subscribing witness must sign the deed itself in a timely fashion and post-hoc additions or affidavits cannot cure the defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deed recorded with only one subscribing witness complies with 28 V.I.C. § 42(a) | Austin: deed invalid because statute requires two subscribing witnesses on the deed | Anduze: deed valid; witness signatures need not be contemporaneous and defect can be cured (via affidavit or later subscription) | Deed invalid: §42(a) requires two witnesses identified and signing the deed itself; affidavit or belated signature does not cure recorded defect |
| Whether a notary’s later-added signature (7 years later) can validate the recorded deed | Austin: belated addition evidences ineffectiveness and cannot retroactively convey title | Anduze: later subscription and notary affidavit establish he witnessed the original signing, curing defect | Court: unilateral, untimely addition rejected; not a timely subscribing witness and cannot validate the deed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given procedural defects in filings | Austin: summary judgment appropriate; Anduze’s opposition untimely and did not create genuine issue | Anduze: procedural irregularities should not foreclose consideration of substantive evidence | Court: plenary review; Austin met burden and Anduze failed to produce timely evidence raising a genuine issue; even if considered, late evidence would not cure defect |
| Whether equitable relief or reformation could save the conveyance | Austin: not applicable; title remained with him | Anduze: sought to rely on equitable considerations or analogies to other jurisdictions | Court: did not decide equitable reformation; declined to address potential reformation on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Appleton, 61 V.I. 339 (V.I. 2014) (property transfer requires deed signed and executed with statutory formalities)
- Milligan v. Khodra, 46 V.I. 305 (V.I. 2002) (post hoc attestation/acknowledgment insufficient to validate defective instrument)
- Simmonds v. Simmonds, 25 V.I. 3 (V.I. Super. Ct. 1990) (deed lacking required statutory witnessing is inoperative to pass legal title)
- Vanterpool v. Gov’t of the V.I., 63 V.I. 563 (V.I. 2015) (Superior Court must ensure record supports summary judgment regardless of local rule compliance)
- Machado v. Yacht Haven U.S.V.I., LLC, 61 V.I. 373 (V.I. 2014) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Brady v. Gov’t of the V.I., 57 V.I. 433 (V.I. 2012) (interpretation of statutory language requires plain-meaning analysis)