Harvey v. Christopher
2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 18
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2011Background
- Harvey and Christopher divorced; Plot No. 515 Sunny Acres, St. Croix, was at issue for equitable distribution as a marital homestead.
The Superior Court held Plot No. 515 did not qualify as a marital homestead and Harvey’s alimony in gross claim was waived.
- A 1993 deed transferring Plot No. 515 to Christopher’s son was not recorded, but included execution formalities and signatures.
- Harvey argued the 1992 Deed of Gift and lack of recording should treat her as an innocent purchaser under 28 V.I.C. § 124.
- The trial court later denied alimony in gross and Harvey challenged the alimony ruling; this Court retained jurisdiction over alimony issues.
- The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s rulings on equitable distribution and alimony, concluding recording status did not invalidate the deed or waive alimony rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the undeclared ownership transfer affects equitable distribution as a marital homestead | Harvey argues the 1993 deed transfer to Christopher’s son should still permit equitable distribution. | Christopher contends failure to record does not negate transfer and Harvey cannot claim Section 124 protection. | Deed validity stands; no equitable distribution as marital homestead due to ownership transfer. |
| whether § 124 good faith purchaser protection applies to Harvey | Harvey asserts 28 V.I.C. § 124 protects her as an innocent purchaser for value. | Christopher asserts Harvey did not prove valid recorded transfer or engage § 124 conditions. | Section 124 not applicable; no recorded transfer to Harvey; no protection given. |
| Whether Harvey waived alimony in gross by initial answer | Harvey contends waiver was not valid for alimony in gross because of later proceedings. | Christopher asserts Harvey waived alimony by failing to amend despite court orders. | Harvey waived alimony in gross; no post-waiver amendment allowed. |
| Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in denial of alimony reconsideration | Harvey argues reconsideration should be allowed for alimony issue. | Christopher contends motion lacking basis and authority; conclusory arguments not warranting reconsideration. | No abuse of discretion; reconsideration denied for lack of argument and authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 51 V.I. 341 (V.I. 2009) (courts may review waivers and related issues within appellate discretion)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 266 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D.V.I. 2003) (trial court distribution of marital assets; lack of jurisdiction over third parties)
- Callwood v. Callwood, 3 V.I. 287 (V.I. 1958) (formal requirements for executing deeds in the Virgin Islands)
- S&S Services, Inc. v. Rogers, 40 V.I. 320 (D.V.I. 1999) (deed execution formalities in Virgin Islands real property transfers)
- Hypolite v. People, 51 V.I. 97 (V.I. 2009) (jurisdictional considerations in appellate remands and proceedings)