Petrus v. Queen Charlotte Hotel Corp.
56 V.I. 548
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Surtep leased government sublets 47E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5 and E-7; right-of-way sublet 47E-8 used by Queen Charlotte for access to its properties; Surtep blocked access via dirt mound and equipment to gates from Queen Charlotte’s property; CZM permit authorized Surtep to pave and improve 47E-8 but not grant blocking rights; Queen Charlotte obtained a preliminary injunction in Sept. 2011 seeking to prevent blockage and for related relief; the issue on appeal is whether Queen Charlotte is an intended third-party beneficiary of the lease or has an implied easement by estoppel; the court affirms the injunction based on the third-party beneficiary theory; Surtep did not challenge other injunction criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Queen Charlotte an intended beneficiary of the lease prohibiting blocking access? | Queen Charlotte is an intended beneficiary of the lease's access clause. | The clause targets only leaseholders, not third parties. | Yes; Queen Charlotte is an intended beneficiary. |
| Does Queen Charlotte have an implied easement by estoppel over 47E-8? | Queen Charlotte relies on implied easement theory as alternative basis. | The court should not reach this theory if the first basis suffices. | Not reached on appeal because dispositional basis found. |
Key Cases Cited
- KMART Corp. v. Balfour Beatty, Inc., 994 F. Supp. 634 (D.V.I. 1998) (intended beneficiary analysis for contract promises)
- GECCMC2005-C1 Plummer St. Office Ltd. Partnership v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 671 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2012) (contract beneficiaries; intended beneficiary standard in government leases context)
- In re Najawicz, 52 V.I. 311 (V.I. 2009) (interlocutory injunction standards; abuse of discretion standard)
- First Am. Dev. Group/Carib, LLC v. WestLB AG, 55 V.I. 594 (V.I. 2011) (jurisdiction and standard for interlocutory appeals of injunctions)