The Law

Untimely Claim by Ron Davis Efforts to oust a tenant from a shopping center located in the Virgin Islands of the United States have seemingly gone the way the center’s owners have hoped. The shopping center is Royal Dane Mall, and the tenant has struggles to remain solvent during the several years of operation at the center. The tenant has, however, continued to operate the business (known as Cynthia Portrait Art, Inc.) throughout the dispute. After repeated unsuccessful efforts to assist the tenant, the center owners finally began efforts to evict the troublesome tenant. That decision led to placing a lock on the tenant’s entrance door and refusing to turn over the key. That led to a lawsuit. The tenant claimed that an eviction was unlawful. And at trial, she explained that the eviction would result in her being unable to retrieve and sell the items contained in the store. In response, the center’s owners filed a counterclaim for unpaid rent totaling $9,070. Following that decision, however, a magistrate indicated that the center’s owner was “untimely” in taking such actions. She explained that the purpose of the hearing was only to determine the extent of the damages that the shopping center suffered. The magistrate apparently agreed, then ruled in favor of the tenant. The center’s owners appealed that ruling, and a magistrate, much to the disappointment of the center’s owners, indicated that the shopping center’s claim was “untimely” and that the purpose of another hearing would determine the extent of the tenant’s damages. Following a second hearing, the magistrate ruled in favor of the tenant. The shopping center’s owners again appealed, arguing that the magistrate erred in ruling in favor of the tenant. The center’s owners explained that the magistrate erred in not considering that the tenant had not moderated her damages. (Failure to mitigate in a case like this is a defense to a claim for damages. And the center’s owners, at trial, carried the burden of proof for this defense.) In fact, the magistrate found that the tenant, as well as her company, “were blocked and prohibited access to the art/portrait studio was a period of three weeks.” In contrast, he added, “the center’s owners relies on evidence introduced at trial that the center’s lock was removed” In conclusion, the court found that “in the absence shown (at trial) of contradictory evidence produced by the center’s owners, the court cannot find that the… magistrate committed clear error by relying on documents to determine the extent of the tenant’s damages.” (Cynthia Stalker v SBP ST. THOMAS, LLC, 2016 WL 4490616) Decision: September 2016 Published: October 2016