S. Ct. Civ. No. 2013-0049

Upon a “Motion to Dismiss,” construed as a motion under V.I.S.CT. I.O.P. 9.4, this appeal qualifies for summary action because it rests on a narrow and clear-cut issue of law. With respect to review by the Superior Court's Appellate Division of decisions by the Magistrate Division of that court, the plain, unambiguous language of Superior Court Rule 322.1 provides that no review may be submitted to a judge for consideration, or decided, unless within five days after an appeal is docketed the filing fee is paid or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is filed. The Rule provides that the appeal be dismissed without further notice if this does not occur. In this case the Appellate Division acknowledged that the appellants, seeking review of decisions of the Magistrate Division, failed to timely pay the docketing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, and that the matter should have been dismissed for failure to prosecute. It committed error by nevertheless reviewing the Magistrate Division's decisions on the merits. Accordingly, the June 14, 2013 Order affirming Default Judgments and the April 22, 2013 Order is vacated, and the Appellate Division is directed, on remand, to simply dismiss the appellants' appeal pursuant to Rule 322.1(b)(4)(A) for failure to pay the docketing fee.