Case Caption: Babij, et al. v. CuffyCase Number: SCT-CIV-2019-0064Date: 03/04/2025Author: Cabret, Maria M. Citation: 2025 VI 7Summary: In an appeal from an order denying injunctive relief and dismissing a claim for trespass, the judgment is affirmed. The appellants never filed an appeal with the Board of Land Use Appeals, and specifically invoked the jurisdiction of the Superior Court under Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), which authorizes consolidation of the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits. Appellants acquiesced in a bench trial on the merits, and failed to promptly seek an administrative remedy; and the Superior Court never prevented them from filing an appeal to the Board. The Superior Court merely adjudicated the case before it, and did not err. The argument that appellants’ Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury was violated by consolidating the preliminary and permanent injunction hearings is not reached on this appeal, because they waived that right by not asserting a demand for a jury trial in the Superior Court. Based on all of the evidence before it, the Superior Court did not err in finding that the appellants did not prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence, and – although it did not have to definitively find the existence of an implied easement to determine whether they met their burden of proof – the fact that the Superior Court found an implied easement demonstrates that it did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s requested injunctive relief, and that it did not err in dismissing the claim for trespass. This Court has previously considered § 2.13 of the Third Restatement of Property and has expressly adopted it as the best rule for the Virgin Islands after a full Banks analysis, thus the decision of the Superior Court is affirmed as to that issue. The Superior Court did not violate the Statute of Frauds, and correctly found an implied easement existed based on the reference to the right of way on the map. For these reasons, the decision of the Superior Court in its August 16, 2019 amended memorandum opinion and order is affirmedAttachment: Open Document or Opinion