Case Caption: 4-10 Estate Botany Bay, LLC v. Kirkland et alCase Number: SCT-Civ-2024-0023Date: 11/27/2024Author: Hodge, Rhys S. Citation: 2024 VI 34Summary: The Superior Court’s March 11, 2024 judgment affirming a January 17, 2024 order of the Magistrate Division that dismissed a forcible entry or detainer (“FED”) action is affirmed. Regardless of whether the defendant engaged in a “forcible entry” or is unlawfully “holding possession” after a peaceful entry, the plain language of the FED statute expressly and unambiguously requires that the defendant possess the property, and attempting to possess a property is not equivalent to actually possessing the property. This is reflected in the sole remedy a successful FED plaintiff may to receive: a judgment permitting the plaintiff “to recover the possession” of the property, as provided in 28 V.I.C. § 782(a). To the extent that the defendant lacks authorization to enter the property but continues to unsuccessfully try to do so, the plaintiff has numerous other avenues available to it to vindicate its rights, such as through civil actions for injunctive relief to stop future trespasses or for trespass or other torts to recover damages to compensate it for past trespasses. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment is affirmed.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion