2013 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 48
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2013Background
- Appellee obtained a domestic violence restraining order against Appellant on July 28, 2009 in the Magistrate Division of the Superior Court.
- Magistrate Mackay held a hearing on August 6, 2009 and granted the permanent restraining order.
- Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 7, 2009; the motion was denied on September 23, 2009.
- On September 13, 2012, Appellant filed a document titled Motion for Writ of Review and Evidentiary Hearing, which the Clerk treated as a petition for review of the 2009 opinion.
- In December 2012 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal; in January 2013 Appellant sought further relief by filing a motion with the Superior Court, which the Clerk transmitted to the now-Superior Court Judge Mackay (still hearing as a magistrate).
- The February 20, 2013 Order denying the motion was issued by Judge Mackay while she was serving in a magistrate capacity, and Appellant subsequently filed a March 11, 2013 notice of appeal without specifying the appellate forum; the Supreme Court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has appellate jurisdiction over the February 20, 2013 order. | Appellant argues jurisdiction under 4 V.I.C. § 32(a). | Appellee contends magistrate decisions are not final appealable orders until reviewed by the Appellate Division. | No jurisdiction; the appeal must follow magistrate-to-Appellate Division procedure. |
| Whether the February 20, 2013 order was procedurally proper to appeal given Mackay’s magistrate status. | Appellant maintains the order is reviewable by this Court. | Because Mackay sat as a magistrate, rules for magistrate appeals apply. | Procedural rule requires appellate review of magistrate decisions in the Appellate Division; not here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehtonen v. Payne, 57 V.I. 308 (V.I. 2012) (magistrate-to-Appellate review required for final appeal)
- H & H Avionics, Inc. v. V.I. Port Auth., 52 V.I. 458 (V.I. 2009) (appeals from magistrate decisions governed by magistrate rules)
- Brady v. Gov’t of the V.I., 57 V.I. 433 (V.I. 2012) (identifies officers as magistrates for purposes of appeals)