Skip to Content
Judiciary of the US Virgin Islands
Supreme Court
Superior Court
Supreme Court
of the
Virgin Islands
A+
A-
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Members of Discipline Boards
Attorney Discipline
Judicial Discipline
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Attorney Registration
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Members of Discipline Boards
Attorney Discipline
Judicial Discipline
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Attorney Registration
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
MENU
Supreme Court of the US Virgin Islands
»
Court Opinions
»
Published Opinions
»
Hackett vs. Sasso
A+
A-
Hackett vs. Sasso
Sub Menu
Skip Sidebar Navigation
Hackett vs. Sasso
S. Ct. Crim. No. 2017-0043
Last item for navigation
Case Caption:
Euphita O. Hackett v. Harriett L. Sasso
Case Number:
SCT-CIV-2020-0029
Date:
05/06/2024
Author:
Cabret, Maria M.
Citation:
2024 VI 25
Summary:
When exercising its equitable authority, the Superior Court has the power to fashion any remedy deemed necessary and appropriate to do justice in a particular case. In the instant case, the court was instructed to “do equity” as it pertained to the plots of land in volved here, and the parties. These instructions, coupled with its broad equitable authority, allowed the Superior Court to fashion almost any remedy it deemed appropriate to achieve justice. In the instant case, the Superior Court remained within the scope of the instructions in the Appellate Division’s mandate by clarifying that the subject property, Plot 5-U, was the disputed property and determining that a reimbursement for property taxes paid by the appellee would achieve the most equitable result. Because the Superior Court weighed the interests, actions, and equities of both parties to reach a fair result, it did not abuse its discretion in awarding appellee an equitable reimbursement for the property taxes paid. Therefore, the Superior Court’s April 8, 2020 amended judgment order is affirmed.
Attachment:
Open Document or Opinion