Euphita O. Hackett v. Harriett L. Sasso, 2024 V.I. 21

Euphita Hackett and her husband bought Plot 5T (St. Croix) in 1972 and built a house in 1973, mistakenly on adjacent Plot 5U.
Hackett lived on Plot 5U, mistakenly believing it was 5T; meanwhile, Sasso and her predecessors paid property taxes on Plot 5U.
In 1998, Harriett Sasso acquired title to Plot 5U through probate. Hackett remained in possession.
In 2002 Sasso sued to quiet title to both plots; Hackett asserted adverse possession and counterclaimed for the same.
The Superior Court in 2004 awarded Hackett title to Plot 5U. The Appellate Division affirmed but remanded to determine the equities given Sasso’s tax payments. Superior Court eventually ordered Hackett to reimburse Sasso for those taxes, with interest.
Hackett appealed the reimbursement order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of Remand	Equity required for Hackett taking both plots while Sasso paid taxes	Remand limited only to taxes on Plot 5T, not 5U	Remand allowed equity review as to taxes on 5U
Reimbursement of Property Taxes	Sasso entitled to equitable reimbursement for taxes paid on 5U	Reimbursement unfair, no benefit conferred, creates windfall for Sasso	It is equitable for Hackett to reimburse Sasso for taxes on 5U
Equitable vs Legal Remedies	Court may fashion equitable relief to do justice in unique cases	Legal remedies should control where available	Superior Court’s equitable authority upheld
Abuse of Discretion	Superior Court fairly weighed the equities and acted within mandate	Court exceeded scope and erred in ordering reimbursement	No abuse; decision to award reimbursement affirmed

3RC & Co v. Boynes Trucking Sys., 63 VI 544 (power of courts to fashion necessary equitable remedies)
Kalloo v. Estate of Small, 62 VI 571 (broad equitable authority of court to do justice)
Alexander v. Alexander, 65 VI 572 (clear error and plenary review standards on appeal)
Sam's Food Distributors Inc. v. NNA&O LLC, 73 VI 453 (standard for reviewing equitable remedies)