Victor v. Todman

For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FRANKLYN 0 VICTOR ) S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 AppellanL/Defendant ) Re Super CI Civ N0 626 08 (STT) ) ) V ) ) MONICA TODMAN ) Appellee/Plaintiff ) ) On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of St Thomas & St John Superior Court Judge Hon Kathleen MacKay Considered October 8 2019 Filed April 2 2024 Cite as 2024 VI 18 BEFORE RHYS S HODGE ChiefJustice IVE ARLINGTON SWAN Associate Justice and MARIA M CABRET, Associate Justice APPEARANCES Francis E Jackson, Jr , Esq Law Ofﬁces of Francis E Jackson, Jr St Thomas U S V] Attorneyfor Appellant Judith L Boume, Esq The Boume Law Ofﬁce PLLC St Thomas U S V] Attorneyfor Appellee OPINION OF THE COURT SWAN Associate Justice 1|] Appellant, Franklyn 0 Victor seeks reversal of the February 21, 2018 judgment of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands (‘ Superior Court ) awarding him a one halfundivided interest Victor v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion 0fthe Court Page 2 of 57 in Parcel no 278 Hospital Ground, St Thomas ( 278 Property or “278 ’), arguing that he is entitled to a larger share of the property and generally challenging the distribution of the property ownership and mortgage liability between himself and Monica Todman, with whom he jointly purchased the subject property in 2001 On her cross appeal, Ms Todman argues that appellant’s contention that the only evidence of Todman 8 claim of lack of intent to convey her interest in the subject property to Victor via a 2003 quitclaim deed was her uncorroborated testimony is misplaced She ﬁmher argues that she was not negligent in failing to have that quitclaim deed read to her before she signed it, due in part to the relationship of conﬁdentiality and trust that had existed between them at the time Lastly she argues that appellant’s contention that the Superior Court should have equitably distributed the property on the basis of a current appraisal lacks a legal basis and that the Superior Court erred in failing to correct its ﬁnding that her interest in the property was burdened by what would have been the entirety of the principal balance of the mortgage affecting the property as of the date of trial, rather than only one half of that principal balance For the reasons elucidated below, we afﬁrm in part and vacate in part and remand the case to the trial court for the taking of further evidence and ﬁthher determination of the equitable distribution of the 278 Property and the mortgage debt on that property I BACKGROUND 1|2 On December 18, 2008, Appellee, Todman, ﬁled a veriﬁed complaint in the Superior Court A The Bench Trial 113 The bench trial commenced on May 26, 2016 Todman s ﬁrst witness was Gerald Laurie Laurie resided on St Thomas and had known Victor for approximately 24 years Laurie and Victor had met when they both lived on the island of Tortola in 1993 or 1994 and both being from VILIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 3 of 57 Guyana, they formed a friendship It was during Laurie s residence on Tortola that he also came to know Todman, whom he understood to be Victor’s spouse While the speciﬁcs are unclear, Laurie s testimony supports certain conclusions While living on Tortola, at the same time as Victor and Todman, Laurie and Victor established a friendship through which Laurie was introduced to Todman, though that acquaintance was insigniﬁcant At some point after meeting Victor, Laurie returned to Guyana While he lived there, Victor would visit Guyana, and Laurie would meet him upon his arrival Starting in 2002 or 2003, Laurie assisted Victor in constructing a home in Guyana In reviewing building plans during this time, Laurie noticed that Monica Todman was listed on a set of plans, and when asked about this Victor explained that Todman was ‘his girl ’ ‘14 In 2005, during some ofthese conversations, Victor informed Laurie that he wished to get rid of” Todman During this return visit to Guyana, Victor explained that he told Todman that a document was necessary for him to obtain a bank loan and asked her to sign it In actuality, it was a deed purporting to transfer to him Todman 5 interest in the 278 Property In 2005, Victor likewise asked Laurie to come to St Thomas and assist in building the home at 278 Laurie had experience in carpentry and electrical work; he lived with and worked for Victor from approximately 2005 2008 1|5 During this time, many Guyanese people worked on the construction of the home Approximately nine people were living with Victor including in addition to Todman and the children' those working for him at the Hospital Ground property Laurie explained that, during the time working for Victor he worked ‘ three years straight non stop Non stop Even Christmas E; included—the son Daryl Victor and Victor‘s nephews, Jamaine and Jamal Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 4 of 57 day, holiday ” I try to help him as a friend, and secondly, I didn’t had [sic] a choice I didn t [have] a choice I had to do it Laurie was never ﬁtlly compensated for his three years of work, but he also did not pay rent, though he was required to contribute to payment of the electrical and gas bills Indeed, Victor paid none of the Guyanese workers When asked whether this was volunteer work, Laurie responded, “we had to work We didn’t [have] a choice We didn t [have] a choice 2 Even when Victor took days off, Laurie would still work at the property During cross examination, Laurie explained that he came to St Thomas at the invitation of Victor, and Victor made everything possible for [Laurie] to get [to St Thomas] ” When Victor 5 counsel asked how Victor assisted in this regard, Laurie responded by invoking his Fifth Amendment3 right to remain silent 1|6 The trial court heard Laurie 3 description of the relationship between Todman and Victor during that time and also heard Victor s description of the relationship Todman would provide food for the construction workers and did so for the three years Laurie worked for Victor During 2 During cross examination, Victor’s counsel pressed Laurie on the issue ofcompensation, and the following exchange occurred Counsel And you were paid for the work you did for his construction business, were you not? Laurie Ahm Counsel Yes or no? Were you paid? Laurie I need to explain to it Counsel Yes or no? Were you paid? Laurie I need to explain that part The Court Sir you need to answer the question Laurie Okay Yes The court followed up asking, You were paid for work that you did for Mr Victor at other properties? ‘ Laurie answered, ‘ Yes Sometimes ’ 3 The Revised Organic Act makes the Fifth Amendment 8 protection from forced confessions applicable to the Virgin Islands See Govt ofthe V I v Huggins 6 VI 3 l4(V[ Super Ct 1967) (noting that Virgin Islands tax laws must ‘conform[ ] to the due process’ and equal protection clauses of the Revised Organic Act and the due process’ clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ) Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 5 of57 that time, neither he nor Victor went to the grocery store or otherwise brought groceries for the home If Todman did not cook herself, she brought food from her place of employment, a restaurant She also paid the telephone, gas and electrical bills for the home Todman used her vehicle to transport workers and building materials in addition to cleaning the worksite and generally ‘work[ing] tirelessly like a horse During cross examination, Laurie explained that, while both Todman and Victor transported building materials, with Victor utilizing his truck to transport larger materials and Todman using her sedan to transport the smaller materials, he was unsure which of the two, or whether both, had paid for the building materials that were used 117 In addition to feeding those in her home, Todman provided food to the workers in the evenings and on Sundays She would cook the food and bring it to the worksite When Todman did not cook, Victor, Laurie, and all the others would receive food from Todman’s place of employment As Laurie explained, Whoever working how many people, right, you would call and me and him would go and pick up the food ” Laurie testiﬁed that, during this construction at 278 Hospital Ground, he resided with Todman and Victor, just next to his next house ” Those men working for and living with Victor were him, “Buckman,” “Tony,’ and “Skilleye,” all from Guyana, and they all slept in the living room of Victor’s home Generally, the men would ‘work for [Victor] in the day and if they don t go out [at night] they got to go and work at the property With regard to Laurie’s asserted lack of choice in working he explained, ‘ if we didn’t work we had to leave the country Victor 8 counsel ventured to ask, Did you consider yourself a slave? ’ To which Laurie explained, “Well the way how things with him, the way how things went, as I say, we had no choice, you know, we had no choice ’ In 2008, Laurie quit working for Victor and moved out of Victor’s property and lived in various apartments on St Thomas It was at this VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Ci» No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 6 of 57 time that Laurie 5 employment with Victor terminated, though when asked where he sought new employment, Laurie again invoked his right to remain silent 118 During cross examination, Laurie was asked by defense counsel, “Would you tell us, Mr Laurie, when you decided to stop working for Mr Victor and you moved out from the house, you did so without fear of being of any punishment for that, didn t you? When Laurie provided an explanatory answer, he was interrupted ‘ right, really just calls for yes or no answer You no longer felt fear of moving out?” Laurie stated simply, “No ” However, defense counsel followed up, ‘Okay So you discover that you really had a choice to stop working for Franklyn Victor, isn t that correct? Well, let me rephrase the question You exercise the choice you exercise the choice to stop working for Mr Victor? You decide you would no longer work for him; right?” Laurie responded, “Yes ” ‘|9 Defense counsel then pressed further, asking Okay And there was no change between 2005 and 2008 that brought you to that realization isn’t that correct?” Laurie then explained, “Yes There was a change ’ “I hadn t a choice I had a choice in the sense that, if better can’t be done with less worst continue ” I meet a stage whereby, if better can t be done, worst gone continue So I had to leave Whatsoever happen will happen ’ “I was forced Yes ” 1|10 During re direct examination, Laurie further explained the circumstances of his employment and his ultimate decision to stop assisting Victor When Laurie agreed to come from Guyana to St Thomas, it was agreed that, for each four weeks he worked, Victor would pay him for one week and keep three weeks’ pay as ‘ savings” for Laurie Laurie, using the funds from his one week’s pay, would save to provide money to his family in Guyana It was expected that Victor would deliver the money to Laurie’s family upon one of his many visits to Guyana, while Laurie was living on St Thomas At a time when Victor had saved approximately $ 10,000 for Laurie View! v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 7 of 57 and Laurie had given Victor his own funds with a request that Victor deliver them to Laurie 5 wife in Guyana, Victor simply never delivered the money to Laurie 5 wife (or anyone else) and never returned it to Laurie 111 1 When be confronted Victor, Laurie was ﬁrst thwarted when Victor told him to talk to him at a later date Then, when Laurie followed up at the speciﬁed time, Victor simply refused to explain where Laurie’s money was, telling him, I say don t ask me for the money ” Laurie was never paid the funds that Victor had agreed to hold on his (Laurie’s) behalf 1|12 Jacob Christian, Victor’s cousin, was the next witness called on behalf of Todman Christian and Victor had known each other since they had lived in Guyana, and Christian had helped Victor construct the cistern at the 278 Property, ﬁnishing work in 2003 Christian had helped Victor at the location because Victor was his cousin; so, Christian was not paid The work performed by Christian ‘was voluntary ’ Christian knew other men (up to four at a time, with the men changing over time), such as a man named Gerald, working at the site, having known them back in Guyana During Christian 5 time working with Victor, he never saw anyone receive payment Christian also knew Todman and saw her ‘ involvement in the work on the house” and knew of her relationship with Victor Christian conﬁrmed that she would bring lunch to the worksite Similarly, Victor would ask Todman to transport building materials, including cement supplies, to the site and she would Likewise, she assisted with actual construction at the 278 Property However, during his time, it was Christian and Victor who did most of the work 1113 Thevar Bristol, Todman 5 daughter, was Todman’s next witness When living with her mother, both she and her brother would read Todman 8 letters and other correspondence and documents out loud to Todman because Todman could not read During cross examination, Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthc Court Page 8 of 57 Thevar was asked whether she had ever observed Todman reading a newspaper, and she stated that she had not 1114 Todman then called Attallah Bertrand Rogers (‘ Bertrand ) Bertrand worked for Scotia Bank and oversaw a mortgage loan obtained by Victor She served as the custodian of records for the times relevant to Victor’s obtaining ﬁnancing on the properties subject to this lawsuit In 2004, Scotia Bank had approved a loan in the amount of $256,000 to construct a home on the 278 Property Victor had provided a quitclaim deed executed in 2003 whereby, ostensibly, Todman had transferred her interest in the 278 Property to him As of the day of Bertrand s testimony, had the mortgage on the 278 Property not been reﬁnanced, and assuming payments had been made on time, the balance due was $226,64l 57 Additionally, Victor obtained a line of credit in July of 2006 secured in part by the 278 Property 1115 Todman testiﬁed that she had known Victor for 24 years, having met him in Tortola while babysitting with Victor 5 sister They began an intimate relationship, and Todman had a child with Victor, a son named Daryl Victor She had two older children, Shane and Thevar Bristol, who would stay with Victor and the rest of the family in the summers when school was in recess [n 1997, Todman and Victor moved their family to St Thomas at which time Todman 5 two older children began living with them, and they remained together until 2008 1H6 When Todman and Victor were living in the Bovoni neighborhood on St Thomas, one night, Victor informed her of a piece of propeny located “around the ﬁeld on top the hill ” Victor further informed Todman that they were scheduled to view the property the next day Following this, they proceeded to apply for a loan, and in order to obtain this ﬁnancing for the purchase, Todman provided the down payment, as Victor did not have any cash reserves VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 9 of 57 1117 As to Victor 3 work history on St Thomas, Todman explained that, initially, Victor did not get much work He would get some odd jobs, but nothing too substantial At the time they purchased the 278 Property, Victor was working three or four days a week Todman attended the closing for 278, and Victor read the documents to her Victor told Todman that it was his intention to build a two story building wherein they could live in the lower level and lease the upper level, generating income Victor found the workers to help with the construction, and Todman supplied the food, for which Victor never gave Todman any compensation, even if she bought it from her place of employment As construction advanced, Todman assisted with obtaining and delivering building materials such as paint At other times Victor and Todman would work in conjunction without the other workers Todman would hand cement, steel, and other materials to Victor for concrete work 1118 One afternoon, Victor came to Todman while they were living in Bovoni Todman was busy mopping the bedroom ﬂoor, as she was cleaning the house on her day off, when Victor approached her and informed her that, in order to obtain a loan to reﬁnance the 278 Property, Todman must sign a paper Victor further explained to her that, since she had already signed on the previous loan, she did not have to attend the closing for this loan; all that was necessary was her signature on the paper Todman was unable to read what was written on the paper While only Victor and Todman were in the bedroom when Todman executed her signature, Jamaine Cotton was elsewhere in the apartment, and the children, then in junior high, were in the living room 1|l9 One day a year or two after the time when Victor asked her to execute the paper in the bedroom, Victor informed Todman that there was a house for sale “round the ﬁeld on top the hill, close to the other property” that they owned Victor wanted the family to move to this new location Victor then took Todman to the property, showing her around and inquiring about her Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 10 of 57 thoughts and opinions Todman then, a week or two later, executed a document at Victor 5 request, as he had told her it was necessary for them to purchase the new property Again, she did not read because she could not and trusted Victor to explain the meaning of the document 1120 The family moved from Bovoni to the Parcel no 290 Property in 2005 290 Hospital Ground consisted of one building with two three bedroom apartments on the top two levels and a one bedroom apartment on the lower level Victor collected the rent from the topmost apartment and lower apartment; Todman trusted him in this family ﬁnancial matter While living at 290, as there was no rent to pay, Todman supplied the food, paid for cable TV and telephone service, and took care of the children Victor paid the mortgage At this time, Victor 5 nephews joined the family after the death of Victor’s sister Todman raised Victor 5 nephews as her own children, putting them through school, taking them to sports events, doing anything a parent would do However, anytime the nephews asked Victor for money, he sent them to Todman 1i2| When construction at the 278 Property was completed, the family moved to that property 278 was a building with three levels, each with four bedrooms; the family lived in the middle level Like with the 290 Property, Todman trusted Victor to collect the rental income on the other two apartments at 278 as well as the third apartment at 290, as it was being leased after the family had relocated Again, the expenses were divided, with Victor paying the mortgage and Todman covering the remainder of the family expenses 1122 In 2008 Victor kicked Todman out” of the 278 Property Todman was served with a paper to appear in court, and at that hearing she was informed that her name was no longer on the title to 278 With regard to the order from the domestic violence matter, Todman explained that Victor had kicked her out of the house, and only after that had the court ordered her to remain away from 278 VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page I I of 57 1123 Todman was speciﬁcally asked, ‘If you had known that your name was no longer on the record or no longer on the property as an owner in November of 2003 would you have acted any differently from then until 2008?’ Todman unequivocally stated that she would not have put her money, hard work, and heart into “all these things what I do for him I would not have do that ’ As her reason for her actions she explained, He make me believe that I have a part sharing what we he tell me what we communicate we do together and it wasn t so It s the day when I go to court I understand all the paper what he give me to sign it was actually false He told me sign this to get the loan and it was to take me off the house ” As an example of other actions by Victor that induced Todman to believe they were acting as a partnership in their family life, Victor took Todman to a property in the Fredenhoj neighborhood because he wanted to purchase it Victor again provided a document to Todman for her signature in order to obtain ﬁnancing Todman observed that other signatures were already present on this document 1|24 With regard to the domestic violence matter, Todman explained that, one day, she woke up and was cooking breakfast for the family (including Victor), and she was served with an order to appear in court In response to Victor’s ﬁling of a court action Todman ﬁled a domestic violence complaint against Victor Further exploring this, Victor 5 counsel asked, Isn t it a fact that you had Mr Victor arrested? ’ Todman explained, ‘ Yes, because the judge put me away from his bedroom in my own bedroom, and I was in there sleeping and he take a hammer and beat the door down to come after me, and I call the police, and them arrest him arrested him 4 Defendant s Exhibit 7 was then shown to Todman; she recognized her name on the document but nothing else 4 An olfense report of the Virgin Islands Police Department corroborates that the handle to the bedroom door had been destroyed when Victor, despite a restraining order attempted to enter Todman 5 room Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 12 of 57 1|25 Victor was then called as an adverse witness He veriﬁed that his signature was on Defendant 5 Exhibit 1 as a witness Rudolph McCurdy was also called as a witness, and he testiﬁed that he had seen Todman execute the document identiﬁed as Defendant 3 Exhibit 1 1126 Victor then testiﬁed in his behalf Victor had worked for different contractors and aspired to own his own property and build a home Upon discussing the purchase with Todman, she questioned how it was affordable and how the mortgage would be paid Victor asserted that Todman ultimately opposed the purchase of the property However, Victor also admitted he was not able to purchase the property on his own As Victor explained, Todman had obtained her citizenship status prior to him, and he could not obtain a loan while in his naturalization status at the time Ultimately, after Victor explained the beneﬁt to them in the long term he and Todman purchased the 278 Property 1127 As to the 290 Property, Victor purchased the property by securing a bank loan based on his income alone He collected $1,300 a month rent from the two units on that property in which his family was not living Victor testiﬁed that he kept the purchase of 290 a secret from Todman, but she moved with him and the family from Bovoni to the apartment at 290, at which time he informed her of the purchase When asked about the decision to move from Bovoni to the 290 Property, Victor was evasive 5 ‘ The following interaction is demonstrative Counsel for Todman How did you get Miss Todman to agree to move to 290 from Bovoni? Victor We have a child together and I don t think it would have been right for me to put my child Counsel for Todman Excuse me sir, I don’t think you’re answering the question I just ask you, how was it that you got her to move, not what you thought about Victor [don’t know V1010! v Todman 2024 V] l8 8 Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 13 of 57 1|28 Todman explained that her children, Shane and Thevar, left the family home ‘ because of Mr Victor how he was When he come home in the evening and night my children had to stand up and say good night, they cannot sit down to say good night He have a behavior with them, so they feel uncomfortable my son tell me he going to look for a job and go night and he go school, Adult Education He get a job ” But by Victor’s testimony, Todman found a home for them and asked them to move out after the doctor conﬁrmed Thevar 3 pregnancy Victor conﬁrmed he never contributed any ﬁnancial assistance to Thevar and Shane when they moved out 1129 As to how household expenses were split for the family, Victor asserted that, when they were living in Bovoni, he and Todman contributed equally, “She would pay 50 percent and I would pay 50 percent ” Victor elaborated, Todman “had a home phone that I told her we don t need She see a need for a home phone so she was paying for the home phone I had a cellphone so I didn’t Counsel for Todman You don’t know? Did you ask her’ Did you bring it up to her? Victor Yes Counsel for Todman What did you say? Victor She move she said yes Counsel for Todman No What did she say yes to? Victor moving from 256 Estate Bovoni to 290 Hospital Ground Counsel for Todman Did you tell her why you thought it was a good idea to move? Victor No Counsel for Todman How did you suggest how did you get her to agree to move without telling her anything about the rent or anything like that and she didn t know that it belong to you? Victor I did not get her to agree to move, I told her that we are moving from 256 to 290 She could have come she could have stayed But we had a child together and I think it was the best for my child to go wherever I go, so she came In an effort to expose Victor 5 self contradiction, Todman s counsel inquired, “Now, when she left in 2008, Daryl your child went with her; isn t that true? ’ and further inquired, “You didn task that Daryl stay with you, didn‘t you? to which Victor answered he had not made any such request, when he explained the court had placed custody with Todman It is noted that, as a matter of public record, in case ST 08 CV 313, submitted as an exhibit, is evidence that in 2008, Victor denied paternity, and Todman had to obtain a paternity test to obtain a child support order to force Victor to support his son VILIOI v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthe Court Page 14 of 57 need a home phone ” Victor was further asked, other than the half of the expenses of the house do you know what else expenses she had His response was simply, “No However, Victor later admitted that he did not pay the cable bill for the home, conﬁrming that the “things that she wanted, which were, for instance, cable and telephone she paid for ” Victor also continued he never cooked for the family 1|30 Victor ﬁthher testiﬁed that sometimes he would join Todman while shopping and pay for the groceries He stated that there was no standard amount ’ he contributed It depended on what Todman could have done, since she worked largely on tips Likewise, while he equivocated, he conceded Todman also “probably” paid the utilities at the 278 Property When Todman did not earn much income from her work, Victor would then give her money for the family expenses When asked speciﬁcally which children he helped, Victor said his son Daryl and his two nephews, Jamaine and Jharel Todman was the primary contact for the schools, if anything should happen to any of the children 1131 Providing more details of the construction process, Victor conﬁrmed that he and one other person from Guyana built the cistern He also had another cousin from Guyana assist at a later date Victor readily admitted that Todman cooked for the workers and “from time to time’ transported materials to the construction site, all after transferring her ownership interest in the 278 Property Then one night, Victor came home around 1 I 00 p m by his retelling to be met by Todman accusing him of being with another woman Victor “just walk [sic] past her ’ and he “say, well, if you want to hit me just hit me that s all right He then proceeded to the bedroom and was followed by Todman As Victor explained to Todman at that time, he believe[d] it was best [Todman] take it It’s best you take the property as it is right now The cistern is now poured as yet, I think you can manage $238 I gonna move on In contrast to this statement, Victor VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page l5 of 57 admitted he earned signiﬁcantly more ﬁnancially through his employment than Todman did through hers Upon hearing this, Todman began pulling her hair out her head” saying ‘ No Don’t do that ” Victor tells his response plainly, “I said I gonna leave, you know So I say, well, if you don’t want me to leave just take your name off of it ” Todman was exclaiming that she had no idea what to do, so [Victor] say, well, Winston Taylor is our attorney You can go to Winston Taylor and he I] explain to you what you have to do 1132 Upon cross examination, this subject matter was explored ﬁttther, and Victor expanded upon the facts explicating that, when Todman expressed distress at the possibility of exclusively bearing the costs of a family and a mortgage on a property containing nothing more than a cistern, “1 said, if you are not going to take it take your name off ” 1133 Addressing the 2008 domestic violence matter, Victor explained that he had been working at “KFC Prior to this incident, Victor ‘used to receive texts on my phone that I have a sexual transmitted disease and “one night, me and Monica was at Miracle on Main Street As he was going to use the restroom, he received a text again; the texts ‘ was coming from AT&T Accordingly, Victor went to AT&T and accessed the self pay kiosk He entered the last four digits of Todman 5 social security number and discovered that it was registered under Thevar 8 name Thus, Victor concluded that the texts were coming from Todman He then told Todman that they both needed to go to the doctor, and then it really fell apart As to Victor’s arrest in 2008, he gave his recounting On a Friday night, the doctor had called Victor to explain that he was “clean , so he put the phone on speaker for Todman to hear But, when it came time to share Todman’s results, she terminated the call, and Victor never heard her results The next day, Victor went to the doctor, ‘ and I ask him, how is it you are saying that I clean, and he tap me on my shoulder and he said, you are blessed V1010) v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 16 of 57 1|34 After this, Victor asked Todman to move out When Todman reﬁlsed, Victor took all of her clothes out of the closets and dressers and threw them in a pile on the floor Victor asserted that, in response, Todman called the police and told them Victor had hit her The criminal domestic violence matter was dismissed, according to Victor, though no court documents were submitted Regarding the domestic violence matter, ST 08 DV 1 18, Victor explained that an attorney advised him to ﬁle a reciprocal complaint of domestic violence against Todman 1]35 During the pendency of the domestic violence matter, Victor was locked up ’ twice Ultimately, the family court entered an order that included a mandate that Victor pay child support and rent for Todman s residence, as he had coerced her to leave, along with his son Regarding the child support obligation, Victor once went to Guyana and could not return or renew his visa because he owed approximately $17,000 in child support 1|36 Although Victor explained that the judge had ordered Todman to leave the home and he pay her rent, Todman’s counsel explored this on cross examination Victor was asked, “when the judge said that Miss Todman would have to leave the house, that was because you said you wanted her out and you showed that the title was only in your name, isn’t that correct ” Victor denied this, though he admitted he was obligated to pay her rent Victor was further asked, “And then Miss Todman had to go back to the Court because you hadn t paid, I think it was the half of the deposit and Miss Todman was having to borrow money and things of that sort; isn t that correct ” Victor retorted, ‘No You looking for a bounce check?’ So Todman’s counsel questioned further, “You were brought back to court on an order to show cause asking that you pay one half of the deposit on Miss Todman s new residence; correct? Victor answered, ‘I can t remember that Victor did concede that Todman ﬁrst learned that title to the 278 Property was solely in Victor 5 name at the domestic violence hearing Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthe Court Page 17 of 57 B The Superior Court’s Findings of Fact and Judgment 1137 In support of its ﬁnal judgment, the court entered certain ﬁndings of fact and conclusions of law It found that Todman and Victor had met in the British Virgin Islands in the early 1990 5 Their relationship became romantic, and though they were never married, they had a son together in 1995 In 1995, Victor came to St Thomas and arranged for Todman to follow in 1997, at which time the family lived together until 2008 when the relationship between Todman and Victor ended During the course of that relationship, Victor was regularly employed as a builder and/or contractor while Todman worked as a cook and dishwasher Todman attended school in St Vincent and the Grenadines until the age of 13 and had no further education As a consequence, Todman could not read, and her writing was limited to signing her name in English Todman’s older children had assisted her in reading important documents but they had left the family home before 2005 In contrast, it was found that Victor was literate in English and fully aware that Todman was not The court speciﬁcally found that Victor and Todman had a ‘conﬁdential’ relationship The court further made the following ﬁndings 1138 Upon moving to St Thomas, the parties had lived together in an apartment in Bovoni until 2005 During this time, the rent was divided evenly, and Todman supplied food to the household and paid the household utilities [t was during this time that Victor found the 278 Property was for sale and showed it to Todman They then agreed to purchase the property, but Victor could not obtain ﬁnancing without Todman cosigning the loan Todman and Victor took title to 278 jointly While Todman was present at the closing on 278, she trusted Victor to handle the real estate transaction Following the purchase Todman provided the funds to excavate 278 as the necessary ﬁrst step to constructing the two story building they intended VILIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 18 of 57 1B9 While at the family home, in 2003, Victor asked Todman to execute what he had represented to be some papers necessary to obtain a construction loan to begin work at the 278 Property Todman trusted and relied on Victor when she executed the papers at that time However, the paper Todman signed was a quitclaim deed that conveyed her entire interest in 278 to Victor Todman never intended to transfer her interest in the real property to Victor or to anyone Victor was one of the two subscribing witnesses to Todman s signature of the deed, which was recorded on July 19, 2004 Although the deed recites that Todman received consideration, she never received the speciﬁed compensation and never declined any such offer of compensation 1140 Utilizing the 278 Property as security, Victor obtained a construction loan in the amount of $256,000 in August of 2004 Victor, a contractor by trade, oversaw the construction and arranged for boarders to live with him and Todman while assisting with the construction at 278 In 2005, the construction loan was converted to a mortgage on 278 During the construction, Todman, unaware that she had signed away her ownership interest in 278, provided meals for Victor and the boarders, worked on and assisted with the construction, and purchased and delivered building materials 1141 During the construction at 278, Victor purchased the 290 Property, and the family moved there to live Todman did not contribute money to the purchase of 290 and was unaware that 290 had been purchased by Victor and was not so informed until after they had begun living there This parcel had a mortgage attached to it in the amount of $274 050 '|42 On July 26, 2006, Victor reﬁnanced his loans and consolidated them into one loan secured by a mortgage on the 278 Property $40,181 48 was disbursed to Victor after prior loans and other expenses were paid Then, on July 31, 2006, Victor obtained a $50,000 line of credit, secured by a mortgage on 290 The loan and line of credit were obtained because Victor included rental VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ N0 2018 0045 Opinion 0fthe Court Page 19 of 57 income from the properties, including the 278 Property, in his overall income, as his personal income alone would not have qualiﬁed him for a loan Todman signed no papers relating to the ﬁnancing or purchase of 290 1|43 Following the purchase of 290, the family moved into one of the apartments on that property, where Todman paid the telephone bill and electric bill and provided food for the entire household Following completion of construction, the family moved to the 278 Propeny where, again, Todman paid utilities and purchased food and other essentials for the family home As previously noted, Victor used monies earned from rent to pay the mortgage on all of the properties During this time, Victor 3 two nephews lived with the family, and Todman “provided their care 1144 In 2008, there was an incident of domestic violence It was during the course of this matter that Todman learned 1) that she had signed a deed conveying her interest in the 278 Property to Victor and 2) that her name was not on the deed to 278 Todman never intended to sign any instrument conveying her interest in 278 The pay off balance of the mortgage, as of the trial in May of2016 was $226 641 57 1|4S The trial court then made the following conclusions of law First and foremost, a conﬁdential relationship existed between Todman and Victor Victor misled Todman into executing the quitclaim deed by making her believe that her signature was needed for a construction loan Victor committed fraud when he represented the document to be part of the application for a bank loan, when it was in actuality a deed conveying her interest in the 278 Property to Victor That deed, though recorded, was void ab initio 1146 The court then made further conclusions of law For example, it concluded that Todman could not be awarded damages for her claim of unjust enrichment because the property had been obtained by Victor under fraudulent circumstances, relying on Martm v Martin, 54 V I 379, 396 Victor v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthc Court Page 20 of 57 (V I 2010) Also, the court speciﬁcally concluded that the validity of a deed wherein the grantor s signature is witnessed by the grantee need not be considered, as the deed was deemed void ab initio on other grounds Further, the court concluded that Todman did not assert a claim for undue inﬂuence, and the court did not ﬁnd undue inﬂuence Ultimately, the court concluded that Victor holds the 278 Property in constructive trust for Todman, and Todman is entitled to an undivided one half interest in 278 1147 The Superior Court entered a judgment on February 21, 2018, though the certiﬁcation of the order indicates a date of July 6, 2018 In this judgment, it was ordered that Todman held an undivided one half interest in 278 Hospital Ground and that Victor held the 278 Property in constructive trust for the beneﬁt of Todman It was further order that Todman’s interest was subject to her share of the liability on the mortgage in the amount of $226,641 57 [I DISCUSSION A Jurisdiction 1148 The Superior Court entered the judgment from which Victor appeals on February 21, 2018 Victor ﬁled his notice of appeal on June 15, 2018, and Todman ﬁled her cross notice of appeal on July 31, 2018 “This Court, being an appellate court, is a court of limited jurisdiction, and must be satisﬁed of its own appellate subject matter jurisdiction before it considers the merits of an appeal WorldFresh Markets LLC v Henry 2019 VI 30 1|14(citing People v R105 S Ct Crim No 2007 01 12 2008 WL 5605714 at *1 (V I Nov 14 2008) (unpublished) VJ Gov I Hosp & Healrh Faczlztzes Corp v Gov I of the V1 50 VI 276 279 (V I 2008)) We must ﬁrst then determine whether the order from which Victor appeals is a ﬁnal judgment and whether the notice and cross notice of appeal were timely, or such objection to timeliness has been waived V I R APP P 22(m) Peters v Gov I ofthe VI 60 V I 479 48] n 1 (V l 2014) VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Count Page 21 of 57 1|49 The Revised Organic Act of 1954, as amended (‘ ROA”), is the defacio constitution of the Territory, and the grant of jurisdiction to the courts of the Virgin Islands contained in the RDA controls over statutes passed by the Virgin Islands Legislature Hodge v Bluebeard 5 Castle Inc , 62 V I 672 682 (V I 2015) Gov I ofthe V] v Crooke 54 V I 237 247 (V I 2010) Pursuant to the Revised Organic Act of 1954, [as amended,] this Court has appellate [subject matter] jurisdiction over ‘all appeals from the decisions of the courts of the Virgin Islands established by local law In re Petition for Expungemem 66 V I 299 302 (V I 2017) (quoting 48 U S C § 1613a(d)) Within the ROA framework, the Virgin Islands Legislature unquestionably possesses the authority to determine the jurisdiction of Virgin Islands courts The Legislature has exercised that authority by adopting the [ﬁnal judgment rule] and [establishing] a set of permissible interlocutory appeals as of right ”’6 Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over all appeals arising from a Final Judgment of the Superior Court 48 U S C § |6|3a(d)' V I CODE ANN tit 4 § 32(a) Toussamt v Slew art 67 V I 931 939 (V I 2017) ‘50 The ﬁnal judgment rule is embodied in title 4, subsections 32(a) and 33(a) of the Virgin Islands Code, which state that [t]he Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over all appeals arising from ﬁnal judgments, ﬁnal decrees or ﬁnal orders of the Superior Court, or as otherwise provided 6 World Fresh Markets 2019 V130 1|15 (quoting Stiles v Yob S Ct Civ No 2016 0027 2016 WL 3211244 at *3 (V I June 8 20l6) (per curiam) (unpublished), and citing 4 V I C §§ 32(3) 33(3), Emletto v Rogers Townsend & Thomas P C 49 V I 31 l 315 V I 2007)) 4 V I C § 32(a)( all appeals arising from ﬁnal judgments ﬁnal decrees [and] ﬁnal orders of the Superior Court ), 4 V I C § 33(a) ( Appealablc judgments and orders shall be available only upon entry of ﬁnal judgment in the Superior Court ’ ) The jurisdiction of this Court, as set forth in subsections 32(a) and 33(a) of title 4 of the Virgin Islands Code, is a codiﬁcation of the ﬁnality requirement that has been a part of U 3 common (and statutory) law since this country s founding and requires those wishing to challenge a ruling of a lower court to “‘raise all claims of error in a single appeal following ﬁnal judgment on the merits Emletto, 49 V I at 3l5 (quoting Richardson Metre]! Inc v Kalle! 472 U S 424 429 30 (1985)) see also Joseph v Daily News Publishing Co [m 57 VI 566 578 VI 2012) ( Section 32 embodies the ﬁnal judgment rule which generally requires a party ‘to raise all claims of error in a single appeal following ﬁnal judgment on the merits ’ ’(quoting Bryan! v People 53 VI 395 400 (VI 2010)) see generally Bachowskl v User)» 545 F2d 363 368 n 20 (3d Cir 1976) (citing Meicalfe 3 Case 77 Eng Rep [193 (K B 1615) C WRIGHT A MILLER& E COOPER FEDERAL PRACTICL& PROCEDURE CIVIL § 3906 pg 425 26 (1976)) V100! v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion 0fthe Court Page 22 of 57 by law’” and limits the availability of an appeal to ‘only upon entry of ﬁnal judgment in the Superior Court from which appeal or application for review is taken ” 4 V 1 C §§ 32(3), 32(b) “‘A [ﬁnal judgment] is a judgment from a court which ends the litigation on the merits, leaving nothing else for the court to do except execute the judgment ”’ Toussamt, 67 V I at 939 (quoting Ramirez v People 56 V I 409, 416 (V I 2012) (citations omitted)) The entry of a ﬁnal judgment implicitly denies all pending motions, and all prior interlocutory orders merge with the ﬁnal judgment Toussamt, 67 V I at 940 n 3 (citing Simpson v 8d quIrs ofSapphire Bay Condos W 61 V1 728 731 (V I 2015) In re Estate ofGeorge 59 V1913 919 (V I 2013)) 1151 Here, the record as to the timing of the entry of the judgment and the ﬁling of the notice of appeal is confusing The ﬁndings of fact and conclusions of law bear (1) the judge s signature with a date of February 21 2018 (2) the signed attestation of the clerk of the court dated February 21, 2018, (3) and the raised seal (photostatically copied) of the clerk of the court certifying its authenticity dated February 21 2018 While the ﬁnal judgment also bears both the judge s signature and the attestation of the clerk of the court dated February 21, 2018 the raised seal (photostatically copied) bears the date July 6, 2018 ’ Victor 5 notice of appeal was ﬁled June 15, 2018 but states that he received the ﬁnal judgment on May 16 2018 1152 However, Todman ﬁled a motion for correction ofjudgment on March 15, 2018, seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, thus having the legal effect of tolling the time for ﬁling a notice of appeal until 30 days after the determination of such motion or after such motion has been pending without determination for 120 days V I R App P 5(a)(4) On July 9, 20 I 8, Todman ﬁled in this Court a motion to dismiss, which was denied on July 13, 2018 In denying the motion to dismiss this Court noted that pursuant to Rule 5(a)(4) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure, the deadline for Victor to seek appeal was tolled Vtclw v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 23 of 57 during the l20 days’ pendency of Todman’s Rule 60(a) motion for correction ofjudgment V I R APP P 4(a), 5(a)(l) The Superior Court did not deny the motion for conection ofjudgment until October 24 2018 and the 120 day deadline would have expired on July [3 2018 Todman ﬁled her notice of appeal, thus cross appealing, on July 31, 2018 1|53 Victor 5 notice of appeal was held in abeyance and remained inoperative until July 13, 2018, the expiration of the [20 day period for the Superior Court to take action V I R APP P 5(a)(4) Therefore, the l4 day deadline for Todman to ﬁle her notice of cross appeal commenced July 14, 2018, and Todman s deadline for ﬁling her notice expired on July 28, 2018, a Saturday V I R APP P 5(a)(l) (“A notice of appeal ﬁled after the announcement of a judgment or order but before entry of the judgment or order is treated as ﬁled on the date of and after entry of judgment ), V I R APP P 5(a)(3) Even extending the time for ﬁling her notice of appeal to the next business day Todman s deadline for ﬁling her appeal was July 30, 2018 See V I R APP P 16(b) 1154 While Victor’s notice of appeal became operative on July 14, 2018, Todman’s notice of cross appeal was untimely However, as this Court has repeatedly noted, the deadline set forth for ﬁling a notice of appeal is a claims processing rule subject to wavier Peters, 60 V I at 481 n 1 As Victor has not pressed this claims processing rule and has failed to do so up and through his ﬁling of his reply brief, in which he then responds to the merits of Todman’s cross appeal, he has waived any such objection to the timeliness of Todman’s notice of cross appeal See e g , World Fresh Markets, 20 I 9 VI 30 1H9 (noting that appellee had waived any claim of mootness for failing to raise it at the ﬁrst incident of substantive ﬁling in this Court (citing Hodge, 62 V I at 687 n 8)); People v Rivera 68 V I 393 414 (V I Super Ct 2018) (by responding to the merits of a motion that may properly be deemed untimely, the responding litigant forfeits any claim of untimeliness) VIC“)! v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthe Court Page 24 of 57 (citing Webster v FirstBank P R 66 V I 514 518 n 2 (V I 2017) and Simpson v Golden 56 V I 272, 281 n 6 (V I 2012)) 7 Therefore, this Court has appellate subject matter jurisdiction over both Victor’s appeal and Todman’s cross appeal B Standard of Review 1155 Victor presents three issues for determination First, Victor asks this Court to consider “whether, the trial court erred in rescinding a deed based on Appellee’s uncorroborated testimony alone, without evaluating whether Appellee had satisﬁed her burden of rebutting, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption of validity given a certiﬁed acknowledgment made pursuant to 28 V I C § 86? This issue presents certain sub issues for consideration First, what is the evidentiary effect of an acknowledgement of an instrument transferring an interest in real property that is, does a properly acknowledged deed give rise to an evidentiary presumption of its validity? Second, if the deed is presumptively valid (requiring clear and convincing evidence to overcome such presumption), did Todman’s evidence overcome such presumption and support the conclusion that the deed was invalid as procured by fraud in the inducement? These sub issues are questions of law over which this Court exercises plenary review, considering each de novo Bradfordv Cramer 54 VI 669 672 (VI 2012) 1|56 Taking the issues presented out of order, Victor, in his third issue presented on appeal, attacks the trial court 5 conclusion that Todman reasonably relied upon Victor in ﬁnding that 7 Cf Plosser v Public Serv s Comm n, 56 V1 391 403 n 9 (V1 2012) ( Where a party timely raises a claims processing rule that was violated by its opponent, we have no choice but to dismiss based on it " (citing Gov I 0fthe VI v MaIIme 620 F 3d 321 328 29 (3d Cir 2010)))' see generally Pennv Mosley 67 V I 879 891 n 4 (V l 2017) (discussing the distinctions between a judgment, order, and decree); Miller v 50/ enson, 67 V I 861, 871 (V 1 2017) (discussing the distinctions between a judgment and decree); Clone: v Chaput, 68 V I 682, 688 (V 1 2016) (quoting In N: Estate ofGeorge 59 VI at 919)’ Prone; v Praise! 33 VI 32 40 (VI Super Ct 1995) (Noting that with the procedural merger of law and equity in the federal and most state [and territorial] courts under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the term judgment has generally replaced decree (quoting BLACK 8 L Dl(T 410 (6th ed 1990) citing 16 VIC §§ 108 110 111 46AM JUR ZDJudgmenIs§2(1969)) Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthc Coun Page 25 of 57 Todman was fraudulently induced into executing the quitclaim deed (e g , “The key inquiry here is whether Todman’s reliance on Victor’s alleged misrepresentation was reasonable under the circumstances ), arguing in his appellate brieﬁng that it was unreasonable for Todman to rely on Victor 3 alleged misrepresentation, given the stormy nature of their relationship, the importance of the information presented to her, and the fact that her two teenage children, who she relied on routinely to have documents read to her, were only a few feet way Victor ultimately argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Todman s actions were reasonable 1|57 As the actual determination of whether a person’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances presented (as opposed to making that same determination as a matter of law) is a question of application of law to fact, it is subject to review for abuse of discretion See Miller v Sorenson, 57 V1 861, 868 (VI 2017) ( The Superior Court 3 application of law to fact is reviewed for abuse of discretion (citing lelu v People 57 VI 455 461 62 (VI 2012))) The underlying factual predicates composing the facts to which the trial court applied the law are subject to clear error review like any other factual determination of the trial court more succinctly, the judgment will be reversed if ﬁndings of fact material to the issues presented are clearly erroneous Cornelius v Bank of Nova Scotla, 67 V1 806, 816 (VI 2017) (citing Rodriguez 58 VI at 371' Rivera Moreno v Gov I ofthe VI 61 VI 379 302 03 (V1 2014) Blyden, 53 V I at 646)) Yet, Victor is correct that the determination of whether, as a matter of law, the facts taken in the light most favorable to the judgment of the ﬁnder of fact do (or do not) Vidal v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ N0 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 26 of 57 make Todman’s conduct unreasonable is a legal question to which we owe no deference to the trial court and is subject to plenary, de nova, review Bradford, 54 V I at 672 8 1|58 Victor further argues that the award to Todman of a one half undivided interest in the 278 Property was an abuse of discretion because the trial court did not consider the relative value of Todman 8 contributions to the 278 Property v15 a v15 Victor 3 On this point, Todman cross appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that Todman’s one half undivided interest in the 278 Property is burdened by the entire balance of the mortgage secured by the 278 Property To the extent the trial court’s ﬁnal judgment is based on ﬁndings of fact, it will only be overturned if clearly erroneous, i e , there is clear error Cornelius, 67 V I at 816 (citing Rodriguez, 58 V I at 371‘ Rivera Moreno 61 V I at 302 03' Blya'en 53 VI at 646) However to the extent the facts as found by the Superior Court are not clearly erroneous, its equitable division of the property will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion Browne v Stanley 66 V I 328, 331 (V I 2017) (citing V I Waste Mgmt Auth v Bovom Invs LLC 61 V I 355 363 (V I 2014)‘ S! Thomas St Bd of Elections v Dame], 49 V I 322, 329 30 (V I 2007)) An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court 5 ruling rests upon a clearly erroneous ﬁnding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact Smith v Henley 67 VI 965 978 (VI 2017) (quoting Stevens v People 55 V I 550 556 (V I 2011)) " See also Kenda Com Inc v P0! 0 Gold Money Leagues Inc 329 F 3d 216 225 (lst Cir 2003) (noting that upon review, the court will “draw ‘all reasonable inferences in favor of the prevailing party, and will afﬁrm unless the evidence was so strongly and overwhelmingly inconsistent with the verdicts that no reasonable jury could have returned them (quoting Walton v Nalco Chem Co 272 F 3d 12 23 (lst Cir 2001)» Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 27 of 57 C Evidentiary Sufﬁciency to Prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that Victor Fraudulently Induced Todman to Execute the Grant of Land, Rendering the Quitclaim Deed Void Ab Initio 1|59 The ﬁrst questions to be answered are whether the recording of a duly acknowledged deed creates an evidentiary presumption as to the deed s validity and whether the evidence presented in this case overcame that presumption by the required standard of clear and convincing evidence 9 To this end, the statutory text provides guidance 1 A Duly Acknowledged and Recorded Deed Gives Rise to a Presumption of Validity that the Challenging Party Must Overcome by Clear and Convincing Evidence 1160 Government ofﬁcials, including the courts, must accept the certiﬁcation of the acknowledgement of a deed if, Inter aha, either the certiﬁcation is in a form prescribed under Virgin Islands law or the certiﬁcation contains words importing a meaning equivalent to stating acknowledged before me 28 V I C § 85(3) (0) '0 The fact that the Legislature chose to deny to those conducting their affairs within the territorial limitsll of the Virgin Islands the discretion 9 The issue of the presumption of the validity of the deed was originally waived, as it was never raised before the trial court However Todman waived this waiver by arguing against such a presumption in her appellate brief, thereby placing the issue properly before this Court '0 The Virgin Islands Legislature has, in section 85 of Title 28, provided the following obligation regarding acknowledgments The acknowledgement used shall be accepted in the Virgin Islands if one of the following is true (a) The certiﬁcate is in a form prescribed by the laws or regulations of the Virgin Islands or (c) The ceniﬁcate contains the words ‘acknowledged before me , or their substantial equivalent 28 v I c §85(a) (c) " Virgin Islands,” when used in the Code, indicates “in a geographical sense, the same territorial domain designated in section 2(8) ofthe [ROA] I V I C § 4! see also 48 U S C § [405 I V I C § 2 (providing that the Code is applicable throughout the Virgin Islands) Territorial jurisdiction is the “territory over which a government one of its courts, or one of its subdivisions has jurisdiction BLACK S L DICT at 871 see also Id at 869 (deﬁning ‘legislative jurisdiction” as ‘ a legislature 5 general sphere of authority to enact laws and conduct all business related to that authority, such as holding hearings ) id (deﬁning “judicial jurisdiction as ‘the legal power Vidal v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 28 of 57 and choice of whether to accept or reject any acknowledgement under the foregoing conditions is an indication that such acknowledged instruments are presumptively valid If the Legislature wished in every instance to leave the determination of the validity of a grant of land to be litigated in court with both parties free to marshal whatever evidence they respectively ﬁnd appropriate, such a provision would be entirely unnecessary 1|6l Indeed, if the Legislature intended an evidentiary contentious dispute when a person wished to challenge the validity of a deed section 85 of title 28 achieves the exact opposite result Section 85 demands that, when the dictates of the law governing execution and acknowledgement of instruments of transfer have been complied with, all those subject to the laws of the Virgin Islands must accept the acknowledgment as valid Buttressing this position, the Legislature did not limit the application of section 85 to ofﬁcials of the executive branch, or even government ofﬁcials generally, and instead, chose to make acceptance mandatory upon all persons 1162 This conclusion that a duly acknowledged deed is presumptively valid is bolstered by the provisions of section 86 of title 28 deﬁning what it means when it is declared that an instrument of transfer was “acknowledged before me ”'2 This acknowledgement, in the context of the and authority of a court to make a decision that binds the parties to any matter properly brought before it ”) see generally Rose v Htmley 8 U S (4 Cranch) 241 279 (1808) ( It is conceded that the legislation of every country is territorial; that beyond its own territory it can only affect its own subjects or citizens It is not easy to conceive a power to execute a municipal law or to enforce obedience to that law without the circle in which that law operates A power to seize for the infraction of a law is derived from the sovereign, and must be exercised it would seem, within those limits which circumscribe the sovereign power The rights of war may be exercised on the high seas, because war is carried on upon the high seas but the paciﬁc rights of sovereignty must be exercised within the territory of the sovereign ) UnitedStares v Bevans, 16 U S (3 Wheat ) 336, 386 87 (1818)( What then is the extent of [the judicial] Jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer Without hesitation the [ludicial] jurisdiction of a state is coextensive with its territory coextensive with its legislative power ) see e g 4 V I C § 82(a) ( The process of the Superior Court runs throughout the territory ) Norman 3 10 V I 495 503 n 7 (D V I 1974) ( By providing that the process of the [court] shall run throughout the Virgin Islands [the Legislature] was merely stating that although there were three major islands and many smaller islands, islets, and cays service could be made on any one of the islands, islets, and cays within two deﬁnedjurisdictional divisions ‘) " While Todman attempts to distinguish Butler v Encyclopedia Brittamca Inc 41 F 3d 285 293 294 (7th Cir 1994) this distinction fails The portion quoted by Todman begins from the premise that a notary does not attest to the Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 29 of 57 execution of a quitclaim deed, is an afﬁnnative statement that the grantor acknowledges executing the deed for the purposes stated therein, i e , for the purpose of transferring the grantor 3 interest in the real property to the grantee Likewise, subsection 777(c) of title 3 mandates that a notary, when acknowledging a deed pursuant to subsection (a) of section 777, must ‘ inquire of each person executing a document as to the truth and authenticity of such document 3 V I C § 777(c) This mandatory duty placed upon notaries public is a further indication that a duly acknowledged deed is presumptively valid, for such an inquiry is entirely unnecessary if the deed’s validity is questionable upon entering the court 1163 Additionally, Virgin Islands law demands clear and convincing evidence to justify a court’s determination that a duly acknowledged and recorded deed was fraudulently obtained, further indicating that an instrument containing an acknowledgment valid on its face is presumptively valid until overcome by opposing evidence Wilkmson v Wilkinson, 70 V I 90l, 915 [9 (V I 2019) As such, a duly acknowledged and recorded deed is presumptively valid requiring clear and convincing evidence to establish the deed’s invalidity As this acknowledgment is valid, as determined in the above analysis, all those in the Virgin Islands were under an obligation to accept what is legally meant by such an acknowledgement Of course determining such presumptive validity of a duly acknowledged quitclaim deed does not answer the question of whether the evidence overcame such a presumption ﬁ|64 Therefore, we are presented with two questions (1) whether the trial court’s conclusion that the deed was procured by fraud in the inducement was correct as a matter of law (or, validity of the statements made in the instrument However, subsection 86(3)(i) of title 28 dictates that such a certiﬁcation in the Virgin Islands is a certiﬁcation that the person signing the instrument did so ‘for the purposes stated therein Obviously, we must apply Virgin Islands statutory law when it is in direct conﬂict of case law from other jurisdictions V1010! v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 30 of 57 conversely, was Todman’s failure to obtain the assistance of a third party in order to understand the deed she had signed, under the circumstances of this case, unreasonable, thus making any ﬁnding of fraud in the inducement unwarranted as a matter of law) and (2) whether the proof offered in the present record overcame such a presumption by clear and convincing evidence Certainly, if the question were simply whether the evidence preponderating in favor of the determination of the conclusions of the ﬁnder of fact was sufﬁcient to support a conclusion of fraud in the inducement, there would be no dispute 1165 The evidence in the record provided an eminently reasonable factual basis supporting the Superior Court’s conclusion that Todman was fraudulently induced to sign the quitclaim deed when Victor, knowing her inability to read, presented her with a document represented to be a loan application at a time and under such circumstances that, in light of their long and turbulent relationship, would exert undue pressure on Todman to execute the document without questioning Victor 5 motives However, simply because evidence rises to the level of a preponderance in favor of one party does not answer the question of whether that same evidence was so strong that it rose to such a level that it was clear and convincing proof 1166 In order to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, a party must present “‘evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain’,” i e , ‘ ‘evidence showing a high probability of truth of the factual matter at issue’ Browne, 50 V I at 265 (quoting In re Laxton 647 N W 2d 784 795 (Wis 2002) BLACK 3 LAW DICTIONARY 596 (8th ed 2004) MERRIAM WEBSTER s DICT OF LAW 172 (Collector ed 2005)) A grant of an interest in land by deed is a contract Dartmouth College v Woodward, 17 U S (4 Wheat) 518, 590 & n 11 (1819) (noting that a grant of land is a contract that is no longer executory but is VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthe Court Page 31 of 57 instead, executed) '3 Proof of fraud in the inducement to a contract requires that (1) there was a misrepresentation, (2) the misrepresentation was fraudulent or material, (3) the misrepresentation induced the recipient to enter the contract, and (4) that the recipient’s reliance on the misrepresentation was reasonable ” Wilkinson, 70 V I at 914 '4 1167 A misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the facts Id (quoting Lempert v Singer, 26 V I 326, 338 (D V I 1991)) A ‘ misrepresentation is fraudulent where the maker ‘intends his assertion to induce a party to manifest his assent and the maker (a) knows or believes that the assertion is not in accord with the facts, or (b) does not have the conﬁdence that he states or implies in the truth of the assertion, or (c) knows that he does not have the basis that he states or impIies for the assertion ” 1d (citing Pollara v Chateau St Crozx LLC, 58 V I 455, "See also Fletcher v Peck 10 U S (6 Cranch) 87, 136 (1810) ( A contract is a compact between two or more panics and is either executory or executed An executory contract is one in which a party binds himself to do or not to do a particular thing A contract executed is one in which the object of the contract is performed and this differs in nothing from a grant A contract executed, as well as one which is executory, contains obligations binding on the parties A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right A party is, therefore, always estopped by his own grant ‘ (citing Blackstone»; BLACK’S L DICT at 719 (deﬁning grant as the formal transfer of real property”); Id ( An agreement that creates a right of any description other than the one held by the grantor Exampies include leases, easements, charges, patents, franchises, powers, and licenses , ‘ The document by which a transfer is effected; esp , Deed ’; The property or property right so transferred ) "‘ Despite this Court 5 express acknowledgement in Penn, 67 V I 879 a full six months and ten days prior to the issuance of the ﬁnal Judgment in this matter that the elements of fraud in the inducement arising from a conﬁdential relationship had never been adopted in conformance with the standards set forth in Banks v International Rental & Leasmg C01]; 55 VI 967 (VI 2011) and Gov (0fthe VI v Carma; 60V] 597 (VI 2014) (3 Banks Analysis ) subsequent to the ﬁnal judgment in this matter, this Court has adopted the common law elements of fraud in the inducement E g , WIlklnson, 70 V I 901 see Sunshine Shopping Center Inc v LG Electronics Panama S A , Case No 2015 0041 2018 WL 4558982 at *8 (D V 1 Sept 21 2018) (unpublished) (noting that exploitation of a conﬁdential relationship to fraudulently induce a party to that reiationship to unknowingly execute a quitclaim deed transferring ownership sounds in fraudulent inducement (citing Ross, 58 V I at 313)) So, while the failure to conduct a Banks Analysis is error per se requiring no analysis from this Court to justify immediate reversal and remand to the Superior Court to do its job, see e g , Cornelius, 67 V I at 825 (failure to conduct a Banks Analysis grounds for summary reversal) Perm, 67 V I at n 7; Toussamt, 67 V I at 952, such actions now would be a waste of judicial resources See e g , Innis: v Inmss, 65 V I 270, 279 11 7 (V 1 2016) (conducting a Banks Analysis in the ﬁrst instance on appeal to avoid waste of judicial resources and further burdening parties in matters of domestic relations) The Wilkinson opinion was issued on March 26, 2019, and Appellant s brief was ﬁIed April 2, 2019 We acknowledge that this is a short time, but this Court 5 opinions are available electronically on its website, usually within 24 to 48 hours of the issuance of an opinion While counsel does not appear to have acted in bad faith, we remind counsel to regularly check the court s website for new opinions and to conduct an update review of their research prior to ﬁling Diligence in verifying authorities saves time and resources Viola! v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthe Court Page 32 of 57 471 (V I 2013)) A misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest his assent, or if the maker knows that it would be likely to induce the recipient to do so ’ Id (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 162(2)) 1168 In regard to whether Todman’s evidence of fraud in the inducement of the contract for a grant of an interest in land was clear and convincing such that it overcame the presumptive validity of a deed duly acknowledged and recorded in accordance with Virgin Islands law, there is no doubt It is difﬁcult to presume how a party could bring further evidence to bear on fraudulent inducement to a contract While Todman s testimony provided a minimum evidentiary factual record, in nearly all material respects Todman’s testimony was corroborated by other evidence, often in multiple instances and quite often by Victor’s own testimony Cf Greer v People, 2021 VI 7, 1141 ( [E]vidence is not insufﬁcient because testimony from witnesses may be contradictory or evidence may be in conﬂict, which, in reality, means that the ﬁnder of fact must have made a credibility determination and weighed the evidence presented ” (citing Marcelle v People, 55 V I 536 547 (V I 2011)‘ Smith v People 51 V I 396 401 (V I 2009») 1169 Victor 3 testimony establishes that he and Todman met in 1993 and began an intimate relationship, holding themselves out to the public as an unmarried family unit (and as unmarried spouses ’) ultimately having one child together In 1997, the family moved to St Thomas, where Victor had been working in construction He took Todman to the 278 Property, and after explaining the ﬁnancial beneﬁts of buying the property and developing it, they decided to purchase the property together Indeed, Victor admits he could not have obtained the loan for the purchase had Todman not co signed for it 1[70 Within four months of purchasing the property, construction began While the construction was on going, Todman cooked and otherwise provided food for Victor and the construction Viola; v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Ci» No 20i8 0045 Opinion ofthe Court Page 33 of 57 workers, as well as the family Victor candidly admitted he never cooked for the family during their relationship Victor never provided any ﬁnancial support for either of Todman 3 children, Thevar or Shane When the family was renting Victor and Todman split the rent payments equally Todman also paid the household expenses for the home food, phone, water, and cable tv, while Victor paid for his own cell phone since he considered the phone and cable expenses for the family home to be unnecessary Additionally, Victor’s contribution to supporting his family was only ever contributed when Todman could not cover the entire costs through her wages As he explained, there was no standard amount” provided and he only stepped in when Todman 3 earnings from tipped wages fell short He also conﬁrmed that his two stepchildren, his two nephews and his son with Todman all lived in their family home Todman was the primary parental contact for the children and helped with their homework {I71 Victor also conﬁrmed much of the testimony of Laurie Laurie had lived with the family and helped with the construction Victor had assisted Laurie in coming from Guyana Like Laurie, Victor testiﬁed that Todman transported materials to the construction site both before and after the execution of the quitclaim deed Laurie had known Todman and Victor to be husband and wife when he knew the couple in Tortola After Laurie had returned to Guyana, Victor had visited and shown him the building plans for the 278 Property On the plans both Victor and Todman were listed as the owners When Laurie had questioned Victor about Todman, Victor explicated they were in an intimate relationship with Victor referring to Todman as “my girl ” 1172 Laurie never saw Victor purchase or provide food for the workers, of which there were four at the time, but Todman did so regularly, even at night and on weekends Indeed, Laurie had never seen Victor go to the grocery store Todman paid the phone, gas, and electrical bills Likewise, Todman used her vehicle to transport workers and materials to the construction site Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 20l8 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 34 of 57 Additionally, Todman worked at the site helping with construction generally and cleaning up at the end of the day Laurie emphasized that Todman ‘ worked tirelessly like a horse ” 1173 Christian also conﬁrmed that Todman and Victor were in a romantic relationship '5 He further conﬁrmed that Todman was involved with the construction at the 278 Property and would bring food to the work site, in addition to transporting building materials and helping at the construction site Also, Thevar, Todman 5 daughter, testiﬁed that she and her brother had regularly read their mother s correspondence and assisted with other reading when they lived in the family home Thevar had never observed her mother reading a newspaper 1174 The bank ofﬁcer testiﬁed that the quitclaim deed was provided to the bank and recorded as part of Victor’s application for ﬁnancing Victor, when called as an adverse witness in Todman’s case, conﬁrmed that Rudolph McCurdy was one witness to Todman s signature on the deed, and Victor, the grantee himself, was the other witness who had signed his name as having witnessed Todman s execution of the deed 1175 Finally, Laurie testiﬁed that Victor admitted his entire plan to defraud Todman of her interest in the 278 Property by fraudulently inducing her to execute the quitclaim deed Laurie explained that he had seen the building plans for 278 on one of Victor 5 prior visits to Guyana and had been told by Victor that Todman was Victor 5 signiﬁcant other On a subsequent visit, Victor conﬁrmed to Laurie that he had informed Todman that her signature was needed to obtain a loan from the bank, but what he had actually given her to execute was a deed transferring to him (Victor) her interest in 278 '5 See State v Carswell, 87] N E 2d 547 553 (Ohio 2007) ( The essential elements of cohabitation are (1) sharing of familial or ﬁnancial responsibilities and (2) consortium) ‘ ‘Factors that might establish consortium include mutual respect, ﬁdelity affection, society, cooperation, solace, comfort, aid of each other, friendship and conjugal relations [l]t is a person s determination to share some measure of life 5 responsibilities with another that creates cohabitation (quoting State v Williams 683 N E 2d 1126 (Ohio 1997))) VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI [8 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthe Court Page 35 of57 $76 This evidence supports the trial court’s ﬁndings of fact 1 IO and 14, which were ﬁndings regarding the parties backgrounds Additionally, the trial court found that Victor took Todman to the 278 Property and afterward they chose to buy it together, which ﬁnding, no 15, is supported by the evidence Finding l6, Victor’s credit was not sufﬁcient to obtain a loan, but Todman’s credit allowed the couple to obtain bank ﬁnancing and they purchased No 278 and Todman and Victor took title to that property ”, is also supported by the evidence Similarly, the court found that Todman attended the closing for 278 Likewise ﬁnding 19 In 2003, Victor approached Todman at home and asked her to sign papers so they could apply to the bank for a construction loan for No 278 ’ is supported by the evidence These examples sufﬁciently demonstrate the nature of the ﬁndings supported by the evidence 177 As to the details of the fraud itself, Todman testiﬁed that having already obtained a loan for the purchase of the 278 Property and taken title jointly (Todman having attended the closing for the purchase of this property), Victor told Todman that he had obtained a loan for the construction of the building on the property but needed Todman s signature on certain documents in order to ﬁnalize the matter with the bank The Superior Court could reasonably credit Todman s testimony that one day, while she was mopping the bedroom floor, Victor came to her with a document and explained that, in order to obtain a loan for construction on 278, her signature was needed The Superior Court could also reasonably credit Todman s testimony that Victor told her that her presence at the closing for this new construction loan was unnecessary, as she had attended the closing for the purchase loan and executed all the documents needed then ‘78 Victor misrepresented both the nature of the document to be signed and the lack of a need for Todman 3 presence at the closing for the construction loan As the document was a deed transferring Todman 3 interest, and not a loan application or other document involving ﬁnances, Hum | Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthc Court Page 36 of 57 this representation was both fraudulent and material Furthermore, Todman expressly testiﬁed that she would never have executed the document had she been told she was giving Victor her entire interest in the 278 Property, establishing her reliance Additionally, given the value of the property involved, it is reasonable to conclude that nobody would have given away their interest in such real property without substantial compensation, thus allowing the inference that the representation that the document was other than a quitclaim deed was material to Todman’s inducement to the contract 1|79 The foregoing was certainly substantial testimony from which a ﬁnder of fact could conclude that Todman was fraudulently induced into executing the quitclaim deed, thus rendering the deed void ab initio, and this evidence established the ﬁrst three elements of fraud in the inducement by clear and convincing evidence See WllkInSOI’I 70 V I at 921 22 (noting that fraud is rarely susceptible to direct proof and explaining that, [i]n a case such as this, where proof is based upon the cumulative probative value of various discrete pieces of circumstantial evidence, it is critically important to clearly examine any and all evidence presented, and ultimately concluding that the facts presented were sufﬁcient to raise the issue and remanding for determination of fact in the ﬁrst instance (citing Wessmger v Wessmger, 56 V 1 481 488 89 (V 1 2012))) The above brings us to the core substance of Victor 8 appeal, Victor fervently entreats the Court to ﬁnd that Todman s reliance upon Victor at the time of the execution of the quitclaim deed was unreasonable as a matter of law thus requiring reversal of the Superior Court’s judgment 2 Because There was Testimony and Documentary Evidence Corroborating Todman’s Testimony, and the Superior Court, as Finder of Fact, was Responsible for All Credibility Determinations, Todman Established a Claim of Fraud in the Inducement to the Execution of the Quitclaim Deed, and, as a Matter of Law, Todman’s Reliance and Trust in Victor was Reasonable VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 37 of 57 1|80 As to the element of reasonable reliance, there are two possible courses this Court could take in addressing this issue in the context presented First, we could adopt a different cause of action requiring a plaintiff to plead and prove a “conﬁdential relationship” resulting in the dominant party in that relationship obtaining something of value by exploitation of that relationship, including fraudulent inducement of a contract '6 Alternatively, we could consider the principles of law underlying the exploitation of a conﬁdential relationship and apply them to the element of “reasonable reliance ’ as factors relevant to be considered in determining whether a claim of fraud in the inducement to the execution of a contract has been established by clear and convincing evidence 1181 It is noteworthy that “fraud in the inducement can serve as both a basis for tort liability and as grounds for rescinding a contract,” and the test to be applied in the case [ofa claim of fraudulent inducement to a contract] to determine whether a [party] is to be relieved of [their] contract by reason of any alleged fraudulent misrepresentation is the same as that applied in action of tort for deceit ‘7 Kenda Corp Inc v P0t0 GoldMoneyLeagues Inc 329 F 3d 216 224(lstCir 2003) '6 This would result in thcjudgment being reversed for the Superior Court’s failure to conduct multiple Banks Analyses and because the Superior Coun granted an unavailable remedy (imposition of a constructive trust) for Todman‘s successful claim of fraud in the inducement to a contract, a clear abuse of discretion and an obvious legal error '7 Historically, fraud in the inducement of a contract was a claim that a contract is void founded in law with the remedy being rescission of the void fraudulent contract placing the parties in the same position they were in prior to the fraudulent inducement (and entitling the injured party to relief such as ordering the guilty part to execute a quitclaim deed transferring title back to the injured party and further ordering the guilty party to record that deed and bear all such associates costs) In contrast, an equitable claim of unjust enrichment arising from the exploitation of a conﬁdential relationship gave rise to constructive trust Given the merger of law and equity over a century ago, it is questionable if these remain two separate causes of action See Walters, 58 V I at 404 ( It is a well known fact that the distinction between courts of law and courts of equity have long been abolished, and that actions in law and actions in equity have been merged into one form of action the civil action (quoting Three Keys Ltd v SR Utility Holding Co 540 F3d 220 229n9(3d Cir 2008») Greenbergv Tomlin 816 F Supp 1039 1052 (ED Pa 1993)( When a contract is induced by fraud the injured party has a choice of alternate remedies he may either rescind the contract or afﬁrm it and maintain an action in deceit for damages ) It would seem that, under the current state of the law and given this Court‘s holdings in Banks and Connor, such a claim in reality only sounds in fraudulent inducement to a contract giving rising to both remedies at law and equitable remedies Emphatically, the whole tendency of our VICIOI‘ v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ N0 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 38 of 57 (citing Demon v Urley 86 N W 2d 537 541 42 (Mich 1957)‘ Yorke v Taylor 124 N E 2d 912 914 15 (Mass 1955) W PAGE KEATON PROSSER & KEATON ON Toms § 105 (5th ed 1984)) Harris v Delco Prods , 25 N E 2d 740, 742 (Mass 1940) And, a grant of an interest in land by deed is a contract Dartmouth College 17 U S (4 Wheat ) at 590 & n l 1 Additionally the trial court expressly rejected Todman’s tort claim and disposed of this matter on the basis of fraudulent inducement to a contract As result of this procedural history considered in light of the substantive law, Todman’s claim of fraud in the inducement sounded in contract, and the proper remedy was restoration of the parties to their legal positions prior to the execution (and recording) of the void deed generally accomplished by ordering the offending party to record a corrective deed and bear all costs of such execution and recording See Kenda Corp 329 F 3d at 225 (noting that after rescission, no contract exists, and the parties are restored to the same position they would have been in but for the fraudulent inducement) 1|82 In contrast, the remedy of imposition of a constructive trust would generally not be legally justiﬁed under the circumstances of this case because that remedy is awarded as relief based upon a ﬁnding of unjust enrichment E g , Francozs 599 F 2d at 1291 Finally, the parties can be restored to their positions as ofjust prior to the execution of the fraudulently obtained deed, thus decisions is to require a plaintiff to try [their] whole cause of action and [their] whole case at one time [A party] cannot even split up c1aim[s] and, a fortiori, [a party] cannot divide the grounds of recovery United States v Calgforma & Ole Land Co 192 U S 355 358 (1904) (citing Trask v Ha;ford& New Have R R Co 84 Mass 331 (Mass 1861)’ FeIIeI v Beale (1701) 91 ER 1 122 Freeman Law of1udgments §§ 238 241 (4th ed 1898)) Aplaintiff is ‘bound then to bring forward all grounds that it ha[s] for declaring [relief], and when the [relief is ﬁnally adjudged], [i]s barred as to all by the decree California & Ore Land Co , 192 U S at 358 59 (citing Blenwlle Water Suppl} Co v Mobile 186U S 212 216(1902) Wellemv NewOIleans 177U S 390(1900) Hoseasonv Keegen 59N E 627 (Mass 1901) Sayels v Auditor Genelal 82 NW 1045 (Mich 1900) WIIdInan v Wildman 41 A 1 (Conn 1898)“ Foster v Hmson 39 N W 682 (Iowa 1888) Slatev Blown 1 A 54 (Md 1885) Boydv Boyd 65 N Y S 859 (NY App Div 1900) Shaﬂerv Scuddy 14 La Ann 576 (La 1859) Hendersonv Henderson (1843) 67 ER313 1 15) This is an issue to be addressed by thejudges of the Superior Court in cases of ﬁrst instance and as the Superior Court expressly disclaimed that its judgment was based upon a claim of unjust enrichment we address only the question of proof of reasonable reliance for a claim of fraudulent inducement to the execution of a contract Victor v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 39 0f 57 eliminating any need for an award of damages See V.l Port Aulh v Callwood, 2014 WL 905816 (VI Super Ct 2014) (noting that rescission would be inappropriate if the parties could not be restored to their prior positions) Therefore, the better course in matters involving a claim of fraud in the inducement to the execution a deed is to consider the circumstances of the parties relationship in determining whether such reliance is reasonable '3 Importantly, whether the agreement is express ‘ or implied is of no legal consequence The only difference is the nature of the proof of the agreement Parties entering this type of relationship usually do not record their understanding in speciﬁc legalese Rather, as here, the terms of their agreement are to be found in their respective versions of the agreement, and their acts and conduct in light of the subject matter and the surrounding circumstances ” Kozlowskz v Kozlowskt, 403 A 2d 902, 906 (NJ 1979) (citing Martin v Campanaro 156 F 2d 127 129 (2d Cir 1946) St Paul FIre Co v Indemnity Ins Co ofNA 148 A 2d 825 (N J 1960) West CaldM ell v Caldwell 138 A 2d 402 (N J 1958)’ l SAMUEL WILLISTON, THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 3, at 8 12 (3d ed 1957); l ARTHUR L CORBIN, CONTRACTS § 18 at 39 43 (1963)) '9 1183 Ultimately, reasonable reliance is a fact intensive inquiry requiring a court to consider the historic relationship of the parties, the reliance of one party upon the other, the relative business capacities of the parties (or lack of such capacity), the readiness of one party to follow the other 3 '3 This also appears to be what the Superior Court did in substance, although its conclusions of law are somewhat unclear Rivem Moreno 61 V 1 at 312 ( [T]he substance and function of a Superior Court order controls over the form (citing InIeDIue 57V! 517 527 28 (VI 2012)» see Balbom v Ranger Am oflhe VI Inc 70V1 1048 1055 n 4 (V l 2019) (noting that it is the content and substance that controls over the form or title (citing Hughley v Gov I oflhe VI 61 VI 323 333 (V1 2014)“ Island Tile & Malble LLC v Bemand 57 V1 596 611 12 (V1 2012)))' Harlan F Stone The Common Law oflhe United States 50 HARv L REV 4 10 (1936) ( If our appraisals are mechanical and superﬁcial, the law which they generate will likewise be mechanical and superﬁcial, to become at last but a dry and sterile fomalism ’) l9See also Kmmson v Kmmson, 627 P 2d 594, 598 (Wyo 1981) (Rooney, J ,dissenting)( An implied in fact contract is a true contract in which the agreement is expressed by conduct rather than by words ” (citations omitted» V1610! v Todman 2024 VI I8 5 Ct Civ No 20l8 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 40 of 57 guidance in complicated transactions, etc Malpere v Miraftabz Revocable 2004 Trust, 426 F Supp 123 134 (D V1 App Div 2019) (quoting Ross 58 VI at 302 06) cf Estate ofSkepple v Bank of N S , 69 VI 700, 739 (VI 2018) (explaining that due or reasonable diligence is a mutable concept that varies according to the facts and derives its form from both context and by comparison to other standards such as excusable neglect” (citing authorities» Therefore, as a matter of factual determination, consideration of factors used to determine whether an intimate relationship has been exploited are relevant to a determination of reasonable reliance and include the unfairness of the resulting bargain, the unavailability of independent advice, and the susceptibility of the person persuaded Malpere 426 F Supp at 134 (quoting Ross 58 V I at 302 06) 1184 This conclusion is further validated by consideration of our holding in Wilkinson that, if a party’s manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the other party upon which the recipient is justiﬁed in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient,” a rule that would require consideration of the nature of the parties’ relationship 70 V I at 908 09 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) or CONTRA( TS § 164 (I981) and citing Lempert 26 VI at 342 Cormorv Connor 65 VI 3 3 4(V I Super Ct 2011) Colonv Gremer Dev C0 28 V I 83 87 (V I Super Ct 1993) Jackson v Smith 19 V I 361 365 68 (V 1 Super Ct 1983) Homer v Lorzllard 6 V I 645 652 (V I Super Ct 1968) Castolema v Crafa No ST 13 CV 243 2014 WL 239427 at *6 (VI Super Ct Jan 15 2014) (unpublished)) 20 "I Wfootnote 2 in Wilkinson, we rejected two cases that had conﬂated the elements of the common law tort of fraud with the elements of a claim for fraud in the inducement to a contract because the party had sought rescission ofthe contract, not an award of damages In this case, the same request was made for rescission ofthe contract, i e , the deed, and no claim of damages was made V1010! v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 4| of S7 1185 Furthermore, other courts have acted in this exact manner in determining whether a party has reasonably relied on a fraudulent representation inducing them to enter“ a contract Eg , Kenda Corp , 329 F 3d at 226 27 (considering the plaintiff’s reliance in terms of the business relationship that had developed between the parties); Greenberg v Tomlin, 816 F Supp 1039, 1056 (E D Pa 1993) ( Although there are no hard and fast deﬁnitions of what constitutes reasonable reliance, the degree of sophistication of the parties and the history, if any, behind the negotiation process are relevant factors in ascertaining reasonableness (relying upon Mellon Bank Corp v Ftn! Uman Real Estate Equity & Mortgage Investments 95] F 2d 1399 (3d Cir 1991))) G&M 01/ Co v Glenﬂeld Fmanczal Corp 782 F Supp 1085 (D M D 1991) In re Health Risk Management Inc , 319 B R 181, I91 (Bankr D Minn 2005) (noting that reasonable reliance is a question of fact but that the guilty party ‘ cannot escape liability by claiming the other party ought not to have trusted the guilty party (citing Davis v Re Trac Mfg Corp 149 N W 2d 37 39 (Minn 1967))); see Merchants Comm [Bank v Oceanside Vzllage Inc , 64 V I 3, 7 nn 56 57 (V I Super Ct 2015) (noting that there is no substantive difference between reasonable and justiﬁable reliance (citing Masmgtll v EMC Corp 870 N E2d 81 88 (Mass 2007) Van Der S(ok v VanVoorhees 866 A 2d 972 975 (N H 20055») 1186 Victor asserts that assuming the facts (as Todman told them) to be true given the stormy nature of their relationship, the importance of the information presented to her, and the fact that her two teenage children, who she relied on routinely to have documents read to her, were 7‘ See genelally Peppeltlee Terrace v Williams 52 V 1 225 241 (VI 2009) (noting that a contract can be oral written or inferred from conduct) 3mg v Time Warner Cable Inc 940 F 3d 205 212 (6th Cir 2019) ( A plaintiff may establish reasonable reliance based on a defendant 5 oral representations " (citing United Pat cel 8er Co v Rickey! 996 S W 2d 464 (Ky 1999) Brown v Louisville Jeﬂerson Cry Redevelopment A 111/1 Inc 310 S W 3d 221 (Ky Ct App 2010) Olive; v JJB Hillard WL Lyons Inc No 2010 CA 001138 MR 2013 WL 762593 (Ky Ct App Mar 1 2013))) Viola: v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ N0 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 42 of 57 only a few feet away,” ‘ it was unreasonable for Todman to rely on Victor 3 alleged misrepresentation ”22 Through this argument, Victor entreats this court to consider his relationship with Todman Therefore, we consider whether the facts found by the trial court, as a matter of law, establish that Todman’s reliance upon Victor’s representations was reasonable a Todman’s Actions Were Reasonable in Light of the Long standing, Family Relationship She and Victor had Established and in Further Consideration of her Lack of Ability to Read English and Lack of Education Limiting her Understanding of Complex Transactions 1187 As reasonable reliance is fact intensive and context speciﬁc, there are few broad rules of law that can be articulated Browne, 66 V 1 at 336 ( The existence of reasonable reliance and detriment ‘depends upon the facts of each particular case ”’ (citations and internal quotation marks omitted» People v Humphrey 921 P 2d 1 9 (Cal 1996)( To effectively present the situation as perceived by the [victim], and the reasonableness of her fear, [they] have the option to explain [their] feelings to enable the jury to overcome stereotyped impressions about women who remain in abusive relationships (quoting State v Allery 682 P 2d 312 316 (Wash 1984))) Untied States v Nwoye 824 F 3d 1 129 l 137 (D C 2016) (Victims in battering relationships are often ‘hypervigilant to cues of impending danger and accurately perceive the seriousness of the situation before another person who had not been repeatedly abused might recognize the danger ’ Remarks or gestures that may seem harmless to the average observer might be reasonably understood to presage imminent and severe violence when viewed against the back drop of the batterer s particular pattern of violence ” (quoting Lenore E A Walker, Battered Women Syndrome and Self 22 In addition to the following analysis, Victor 3 argument rests largely on the false premise that the facts found by the trial coun are the facts he asserts in this argument However, the Superior Court found that Victor fraudulently induced Todman 5 Signature, a conclusion that implicitly found Todman 5 version of events to be the credible version, and we must make all inferences in favor of the prevailing party when the trial court 5 ﬁndings of fact are not clearly erroneous In fact it was impossible for the trial court to have ruled as it did if it had found this aspect of Victor 5 testimony credible VICIOI v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthc Court Page 43 of57 defense 6 NOTRE DAME J L ETHICS & PUB POL Y 321 324 (1992))) Simply the outer limit of this doctrine requires only that the relied upon statement not be ‘preposterous or palpably false ”’ Kenda Corp 329 F 3d at 227 (quoting Yorke 124 N E 2d at 916 and citing Kuwaiti Danish Computer Co v Digital Equip Corp 781 N E 2d 787 795 (Mass 2003) Zimmerman v Kent 575 N E 2d 70 71 (Mass Ct App 1991) PROSSER & KEETON 0N TORTS § 108)) In re McKenney 953 A 2d 336 343 (D C 2008) (stating that it is unreasonable to rely upon a statement that is preposterous or obviously false (quoting 37 AM JUR 2D Fraud & Deceit § 239 at 265 (2001))) Furthermore, without question, “‘where a defendant has willfully made false representations with intent to deceive he is not relieved of liability because of his victim’s lack of diligence ’” Id (quoting Yorke 124 N E 2d at 916)) see In re McKenney 953 A 2d at 343 (noting that failure to investigate does not make reliance unreasonable unless the facts establish that the person claiming fraudulent inducement failed to act in good faith according to standards of fair dealing (quoting authorities)) Lastly, reasonable reliance is a factual inquiry requiring consideration of all relevant facts including, inter alia, the relationship of the parties, their past dealings the capacity of the person deceived, the experience of the person deceived, and the circumstances under which the fraudulent inducement occurred In re Health Risk Mgm! Inc , 319 B R at 191 We, therefore turn to our consideration of the parties relationship and the individual characteristics of Todman and Victor, as well as the circumstances (as found by the trial court) under which Todman executed the quitclaim deed i The Parties’ Relationship V1610! v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ N0 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 44 of 57 1188 As to their relationship, both parties testiﬁed that they lived in a meretricious relationship 23 holding themselves out as husband and wife for more than a decade, including during all times material to this case See In re Marriage of Lindsey, 678 P 2d 328, 331 (Wash 1984) ( Courts must ‘examine the meretricious relationship and the property accumulation and make a just and equitable disposition of the property Factors to consider [include] continuous cohabitation, duration of the relationship, purpose of the relationship, and the pooling of resources and services Courts should examine each case on its facts ’ (citations omitted» 24 When considering the nature of their relationship, we consider ‘whether the parties ‘have functioned similarly to the members of formally recognized family relationships, such as marriage Generally, the legal consequences ﬂowing from [functional recognition of non martial family units] fall within the scope of private law (reciprocal rights and obligations) Palazzo, The Strange Pairing ButldmgA/llances Berween Queer Actzvzsts and Conservative Groups to Recognize New Families, 25 MICH .1 GENDER & L 161 180 (2018) (quoting Robert Leckey Families m the Eyes offhe Law Contemporary Challenges and the Grip 0fthe Pas! 15(8) IRPP CHOICES 1 3 (2009)) While Victor disputes the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from the reality of the parties’ relationship, 23 See generally Carmel! 898 P 2d at 834 (deﬁning a meretricious relationship) see also Ex pane Nlelsen 131 U S 176, 185 86 (1889) (“Cohabitation is a living or dwelling together as [sposues] ” (quoting In 1e Snow, 120 U S 274, 281 (1887»), In re Snow, 120 U S at 281 ( Cohabiting [is a person] living in the same house with [a person they] had theretofore acknowledged as [their spouse], and eating at their respective tables, and holding them to the world by their language or conduct, or both as [their spouse] )‘ Moreyv Commonwealth 108 Mass 433 436 (Mass 1871) ( Cohabitation did require proof that they dwelt or lived together (citing Commonwealth v Calef, 10 Mass 153 (Mass 1813)» Beckman v Mayhew 122 Cal Rptr 604 605 n 1 (Cal Ct App 1975) ( non marital family relationship means two people 5 ‘indeﬁnitely continued assumption of family life without a marriage ceremony and without good faith belief they are married ) eg Walters 58 V1 at 401 03 ( Although legal title to the Estate Nazareth property is not held in Parrott’s name, her contributions to the maintenance of the property over the years afforded her an equitable claim in the property ’) 2“ See also eg Bea! v Bea] 577 P 2d 507 510 (Or 1978) Traver v Naylor 268 P 75 78 (Or 1928) In 1e Thomlon 5 Estate 499 P 2d 864 867 68 (Wash Ct App 1972) Humphrles v Riveland 407 P 2d 967 979 80 (Wash Ct App l965)(citing Knollv Knoll 176P 22 (Wash 1918)) McHenva Smith 609 P 2d 855 857 58 (Or Ct App 1980) Victor v Todman 2024 VI [8 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 45 of 57 his testimony (as well as Todman s and that of other witnesses) establishes that he and Todman operated as a family unit comingling resources and mutually supporting each other in an endeavor to build a life together that would be more productive and successﬁJl than either could have done individually See In re Marriage ofSaw, 79 P 2d 1020, 1028 (Or 1989) ( ‘Non earning spouses who maintain the home, do the cooking and cleaning and raise the children, also contribute to the acquisition of property in a tangible way ”’ (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)) 25 It is unquestionable that their relationship was that of intimate partners to a jointly established family unit Tl89 Furthermore, Victor’s own testimony is replete with instances documenting his emotional and ﬁnancial abuse of Todman during the course of their entire relationship See Cesare v Cesare, 713 A 2d 390, (N J [998) (The victim’s testimony about defendant 8 previous threats, intimidation, and abuse could lead the court to conclude that a reasonable victim in plaintiff‘s situation would have felt [coerced] Although defendant 3 words did not contain an explicit threat , the surrounding circumstances were such that the trial court, in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses, appropriately found that ‘ plaintiff was right in her feeling threatened ” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted» 26 For example, Victor admitted that 25 Dana Harrington Connor, Fmanual Freedom Women Money and Domestic Abuse, 20 WM & MARY J WOMEN & L 339, 358 60 (2014) ( ‘For some abusers ﬁnancial control is accomplished through a calculated process of seeking out and nurturing a relationship with an individual of compromised means Other abusers spend years restricting their partner's access to education, employment training contacts, and resources, thereby limiting her ability to secure ﬁnancial freedom once the abuse beings Moreover, women in poveﬂy experience multiple vulnerabilities, which have a causal relationship with economic hardship such as single parenthood homelessness, diminished social capital, compromised immigration status, and language barriers (citations omitted» ° See generally Arianne Renan Barzilay, Power In the Age ofln/Equallry Economzc Abuse Mascu/Imnes and the Long Road 10 Marriage Equality 51 AKRON L RI—V 323 328 29 (2017) ( Economic abuse [is using] tactics that control a woman s ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic resources thus threating her economic security and potential self sufﬁciency " (citations omitted» VICIOI v Todman 2024 V1 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 46 of 57 Todman executed a quitclaim deed that turned over to him the only valuable asset accumulated during their relationship This is the most common form of ﬁnancial abuse in abusive relationships 27 Victor admitted that he attempted to force upon Todman the entire ﬁnancial burden of the property by generously offering to give her the entire property and the entire debt Again, this situation is among the most common forms of ﬁnancial abuse designed to make the abused partner panic Victor further admitted that he forced Todman to bear every family expense beyond paying the mortgage and taxes and that he used Todman’s share of rental income on their most valuable asset, parcel 278, to also pay those expenses; thus, he ensured that Todman was never able to accumulate any wealth or assets during their relationship, again, one of the most common tactics of ﬁnancial abuse 1190 Moreover, Victor admitted that his deﬁnition of necessary family expenses was only those expenses that served his needs while coincidentally meeting the needs of his family and members of the household For example, Victor cavalierly testiﬁed that the home telephone was not a necessary family expense because he had his own cell phone Victor further testiﬁed that, only after he had exploited Todman’s ﬁnancial, physical, and emotional resources and he had manipulated their ﬁnances such that he owned multiple properties free and clear of debt (while he simultaneous overloaded with debt the single property to which Todman had a recorded interest), he then evicted her from the home they had built together and accomplished this by deceit and 27 See generally Margaret E Johnson, Changing Course In the Anti domestic VIo/ence Legal Movement From Safety to Seem 11y, 60 VlLL L REV 145, 195 (2015) (“Debt can be coerced in multiple ways, including tricking a partner into signing a quitclaim deed to the home (citations omitted»; e g , Alderson v Aldeison, 225 Cal Rptr 610, 612 (Cal Ct App 1986) ( Jonne moved from the family home, she said, because Steve told me to get out Prior to leaving, Jonne signed quitclaim deeds ‘for all of the houses She said she did so under duress Steve told me that I would never get any property He would see me dead before I got any of them ’ Jonne said she was afraid for her own safety and so she just signed the deeds to get out Jonne received no payment for signing the deeds ’); Tylan/(sl v Piggms 205 N W 2d 595 597 (Mich Ct App 1973) ( After the man tired ofthe woman he brought suit claiming the [family home] was his property (citation omitted)» VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 47 of 57 ambush With such open admission to a long term strategy of abuse under oath, any court would be remiss in failing to remember that [i]t is important that courts and attorneys hearing or presenting evidence in domestic [abuse] cases be aware that the cycles of [abuse] and the power dynamic in abusive relationships can dramatically affect the type, quality, and quantity of evidence available to the court Judges and attorneys who have been schooled in the dynamics of domestic [abuse] will be best able to understand the testimony and judge its credibility For example, frequently [an abuser] will testify about justiﬁcations for the [abuse] that can provide a fact ﬁnder important insight into the existence of power and control in the relationship [Abusers] will minimize or deny that the [abuse] occurred They might attempt to explain their behavior, focusing on actions by the victim that supposedly caused the [abuse] [By contrast, w]hen [abused partners] present testimony particularly those who have been victimized over a long time, research indicates that they will tend to underestimate both the frequency and the severity of the [abuse] they experienced [Similarly,] out of fear of their [abuser’s] retaliation, [they] will minimize and deny the [abuse] request that court proceedings be dismissed, or accept the [abuser s] promise to stop ﬁn’ther [abuse] from occurring All of this will ﬂavor the evidence presented at trial Klein & Orloff, Prowdmg Legal Protection for Battered Women An Analyszs ofState Statutes and Case Law 21 HOFSTRA L REV 80l 1173 & n2309 (1993) (citing Anne L GANLEY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THE WHAT WHY AND WHO AS RELEVANT TO CIVIL COURT CASES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN CIVIL COURT CASES A NATIONAL MODEL FOR JUDICIAL EDUCATION 23, 33 (Agtuca, et al eds , I992)) The trial court 5 conclusions that Todman’s reliance upon Victor and that the subsequent actions she took founded upon that reliance were reasonable are supported by the evidence of the nature of their relationship ii Todman’s Characteristics 1|9l While Victor, again, relies on a false factual premise that Todman was perfectly literate and could read and understand the deed and any other documents presented to her the trial court’s Victor v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 48 of 57 ﬁndings were the opposite and are amply supported by the record As the Superior Court explicitly found, Todman had only an education comparable to that of a middle school student and lacked the ability to read Furthermore, in light of the long history of emotional and ﬁnancial abuse displayed in the record, the trial court 5 conclusion that Todman s reliance was reasonable is supported by the evidence Indeed, Victor admitted that, when Todman asked how the couple could afford to purchase the 278 Property, he explained the ﬁnancing process, and once he did this, Todman agreed the purchase was a good idea Notably, it does not beneﬁt Victor to claim that Todman’s reliance at that time was unreasonable, and he makes no such argument But, when it would have the legal result of validating the quitclaim deed, Victor asserts that it was preposterous for Todman to accept his representations Such contradictory factual arguments are of little to no value and lacking in credibility 1]92 In contrast to Victor’s appellate arguments, the Superior Court found that the two had a long and intimate relationship upon which they built both a family and community property to their beneﬁt Todman lacked education and ﬁnancial sophistication and relied upon Victor in their business and ﬁnancial dealings while providing him (and their family) with signiﬁcant ﬁnancial and emotional support Likewise, multiple statements by Victor during his testimony indicate that he exploited his position of power in his relationship with Todman to manipulate her to his ends, the most obvious being when he threatened Todman with unloading all the family expenses upon her under the guise of generously giving her the 278 Property ’8 Todman 5 lack of education and her role as the subservient partner in the relationshikmlly documented in this record amply support the trial court’s conclusion that her reliance was reasonable 2:311:63 Littwin Coelced Deb! The Role ofCorIsumeI Credit m Domestic Violence, 100 CALIF L REV 95] 982 VICIOI‘ v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ N0 20l8 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 49 of 57 iii The Circumstances of the Execution of the Deed 1|93 As we already noted, Victor’s appellate argument assumes that the Superior Court 5 factual ﬁndings are clearly erroneous, but they were not As the record reﬂects, Todman was alone with Victor in the bedroom of their apartment (with only Victor 5 friend present to serve as a witness) and told that she had to execute the document he handed her (with ﬁtll knowledge of her inability to read it) and falsely represented that it was a loan document rather than a quitclaim deed Furthermore, it is established that nobody else was in the apartment at the time 1l94 In direct contradiction of his claim of the ‘ voluntary nature of Todman 8 giving Victor her half of the 278 Property, Victor demonstrated that his efforts fall nothing short of coercion Victor, having previously testiﬁed that Todman “wasn’t making no money,” ‘ making about $5 or $6 an hour, ’ explains that he was home and took Todman into where he had the deed prepared for her to execute and explained that he believed it was best Todman take the property right now The cistern is now poured I think you can manage $238 I gonna move on ” Predictably, Todman was distressed at the prospect of having to support her children, including Victor 5 son, when making only $5 6 an hour and suddenly being saddled with the additional expense of a mortgage payment and began pulling her hair out her head ’ and begging Victor not to do that Again, predictably, Victor’s response was to “magnanimously” tell Todman, I said I gonna leave so I say, well, if you don’t want me to leave just take your name off [the property] ”29 1|95 Victor admits that Todman was distressed, as he testiﬁed to Todman having exclaimed to him that she had no idea what to do So, again Victor magnanimously’ told Todman to go to Victor 5 lawyer so the lawyer could explain to Todman the necessary steps to give her half of the ” During cross examination, Victor further described this voluntary” decision of Todman explaining that he told Todman, ‘1 said, if you are not going to take it take your name off ‘ Victor speciﬁcally testiﬁed that these were his exact words at the time stating, I’m telling you the exact words that I‘m saying Those are the exact words Hclor \ Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 50 of 57 property to Victor After all this, by Victor 3 assessment, Todman voluntarily agreed to give him her half of the property at that time because they were not getting along Now, even if this testimony were to be found credible (a conclusion precluded by the trial court 5 ﬁndings of fact and ultimate disposition), it is clear that Victor coerced Todman into executing the deed by threatening to burden her ﬁnancially Todman, faced with the prospect of being homeless with her and Victor’s child to care for and making only $5 6 an hour, and given the choice of taking on a mortgage payment for a property containing nothing more than a cistern, chose the alternative to care for her child and accede to Victor’s demands 1196 Yet again, by Victor’s own admission, this all occurred in November 2003, and he and Todman continued to live together for another ﬁve years in the same manner as they had since foming a family unit and holding themselves to the public as husband and wife in Tortola in 1997 Victor’s actions in this speciﬁc regard utterly undermine any credibility in his testimony that he regularly, or ever, offered Todman the money he was obligated to provide More damningly, this testimony leaves no question that, had the trial court accepted this testimony as credible, any conclusion that Todman’s execution of the quitclaim deed was voluntary would be clearly erroneous as unsupported by any record evidence 3° 1197 Under these circumstances, especially considered in light of the couple’s history presented in the record, Todman’s reliance was reasonable See In re McKenney, 953 A 2d at 343 ( Moreover, [the defendant] is hardly in a position to fault [the plaintiff’s] acceptance of his assertions when [they] pressed [the plaintiff] vigorously for an immediate decision the face of the 3° See 5 V l C § 740(3) ( A witness willfully false in one part ofhis testimony may be distrusted in others ) 5 V l C § 740(2) (The ﬁnder of fact is not bound to ﬁnd in confonnity with the declarations of any number of witnesses which do not produce conviction in their minds ) Vim» v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthc Court Page 51 of 57 impending demolition [of the property] On this record, we cannot say as a matter of law that [the plaintiff’s] reliance was unreasonable ), Kenda Corp , 329 F 3d at 227 (holding that even a sophisticated business person 5 failure to investigate does not make reliance unreasonable) iv Victor’s Credibility 1|98 Moreover, Victor’s credibility issues further bolster Todman’s version of events and further support the factual ﬁndings and legal conclusions of the trial court As Laurie s testimony indicates, Victor was unscrupulous in all his dealings Victor induced multiple people to come to work for him and represented that he would hold their compensation in trust and even at times representing he would turn the money over to the families of the men working for him Yet, Victor seems to have uniformly refused to turn over the promised compensation and to have uniformly pocketed money given to him for delivery to third parties 1199 Additionally, Victor undermined his credibility, often offering convenient” statements that were at best weakly supported by the evidence and often contradictory to his own testimony as well as the other evidence before the court 3' For example, Victor testiﬁed both that, when he sought to purchase the 278 Property, he took Todman to the property and explained to her how they could afford the purchase, to which she ultimately agreed and that he did not get her to agree to move and that “she could have come she could have stayed ” These two realities cannot exist simultaneously If he and Todman were not operating as a family unit in agreement to jointly comingle resources and provide labor in the joint acquisition of assets, then there was absolutely no reason for Victor to explain to Todman how the 278 Property could be purchased; indeed, under 3' See Klein & Orloff, Providing Legal Protectionfor Batteied Women An Analysis ofState Statutes and Case Law, 21 HOFSTRA L REV 80] l 173 & n 2309 (1993) ( Few men even the most severe [abusers] think of themselves as men who [abuse] their [partners] The abuser s tendency to minimize problems is comparable to the denial by alcohol and drug abusers (citing GANLEY, supra at 33, Adams, Idenujfvmg the Assaulnve Husband In Court You be the Judge 33 BOSTON B J 23 24 (1989)» VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 52 of 57 such circumstances, there would have been no need for Todman’s involvement at all Yet, Victor testiﬁed in detail about Todman’s involvement in the purchase 11100 Furthermore, while his testimony was initially phrased in such a way as to indicate that Todman strenuously opposed the purchase of the 278 Property, when pressed, Victor explained that Todman actually questioned how they could afford such an expense and, after discussing the ﬁnances, readily agreed to jointly purchase the property, co signing the loan for the purchase Given the family 5 ﬁnancial conditions at the time, Todman 3 concerns were the height of ﬁnancial and parental responsibility, not some subterfuge employed to oppose a decision beneﬁcial to the family 11101 Similarly, Victor testiﬁed that the household expenses were evenly divided However, when further pressed, it became apparent that Victor’s deﬁnition of equal ’ was, in a word, convenient While Victor readily asserted this 50 50 split of household expenses, what constituted a household expense worth Victor 5 50% contribution was in reality only those expenses Victor wanted to or felt like paying With ﬁve children and four adult workers living with Victor and Todman and Victor admitting that he would be gone from before day break until after I l 30 p m every day, he refused to contribute to the expense of a family phone because he deemed it to be an unnecessary expense, explaining ‘ I had a cellphone so I didn’t need a home phone ” Similarly, cable TV was an unnecessary expense to which he never contributed his earnings or rental earnings from any of the properties And yet again, Victor conceded that Todman paid for the electricity Yet, Victor was using 100% of the rental income from 278, of which Todman was entitled to 50%, to pay 100% of the various loans he had obtained Therefore, he was utilizing Todman s rental income from 278 to pay the m0Itgage and taxes thus Victor was only using his personal income to pay 50% of the mortgage while leaving Todman to cover what was effectively 100% of the VICIOI v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 53 of 57 family’s expenses, all while she was contributing her time, labor, credit, and ﬁnances to the construction, in addition to having her share of rental income exploited by Victor to pay the mortgage and taxes To term this an even split of the expenses between Victor and Todman is disingenuous at best 11102 Likewise, while Victor claimed to contribute to groceries, he admitted there was never a “standard amount” that he contributed, and importantly, he only contributed when Todman s tipped income was so insubstantial as to prevent her from covering the total amount This assertion reﬂects Victor 8 convenient view of what constitutes an even split between two partners in a family unit Moreover Victor frankly admitted that he never gave ﬁnancial support to the upbringing of his two stepchildren, even though they lived in the family home 11103 Additionally, Victor s explanations for his paying of both the compensation stated in the deed and his child support obligations were, at best, mendacious First, Victor claimed he offered Todman $6,000 to purchase her half of the property, but she refused Then, he claimed he paid her through his contribution toward the purchase of a new vehicle After contradictory testimony as to these payments, wherein Victor assented that Todman regularly refused to accept money from him (which Todman denied), Victor conﬁrmed that he was incarcerated twice for violating the domestic violence order, as related to that order s requirement that Victor pay various expenses of Todman Indeed, Victor conﬁrmed that he had failed to pay child support for an inordinately long period of time, accruing $17,000 in arrearages 32 Upon attempting to return to St Thomas from a 32 Deborah Epstein, Margaret E Bell, Lisa A Goodman, Transforming Aggressive PI osecutlon PolICIes PI 10! III mg Victims Long (e; m Safety m the PI oseczmon ofDomestIc Violence Cases, 1 1 AM U J GENDER SOC POL Y & L 465, 477 78 (2003) ( Even when ordered to provide spousal or child support by the court many [intimate partner abusers] refuse to make payments or delay doing so for long periods of time (citing Sarah M Buel Domenc Violence and the Law An Impassmnea' Explorationfor Family Peace 33 FAM 0L Q 719 743 (1999) Anna Marie Smith, The Sexual Regulation Dimension ofContempor my Welfale Law A F(fly State Overwew, 8 MICH J GENDER & L 12] 155 56 (2002))) Victor v Todman 2024 VI [8 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 54 of 57 visit to Guyana, Victor was denied re entry and denied renewal of his visa until he satisﬁed that obligation 1|104 But the truly absurd convenience of Victor 3 testimony is glarineg exposed and laid bare when considering his testimony For someone who asserted that he only tolerated Todman’s moving to Hospital Ground with him because he cared so much about his child, Victor had no qualms or compunctions about letting his child suffer without ﬁnancial support to the tune of $17,000, after Victor had evicted Todman from the family home and readily sent his child along with her Of course, Victor was able to make an entire lump sum payment of $17,000 of child support arrearages in order to regain entry to this country Yet, this “only begs the question, if he was able to pay his arrears , why didn’t he? He knew he had an obligation to do so Yet, the record is devoid of [evidence that Todman took] any action that would permit [Victor] to reasonably assert that he was led to believe that he had been released from the obligation ” Kelman v Kelman 21 V I 307 310 (V I Super Ct [985) 11105 To conclude that this testimony had the overwhelming power to destroy whatever remained of Victor 3 credibility is an understatement, and such a determination was exclusively within the province of the ﬁnder of fact, i e , in a bench trial, the trial judge From the outset, Victor’s telling of the events leading to his arrest was pure fantasy and ﬁction Victor would have had the court believe that he was getting random texts from an unknown number informing him of a medical condition and then went to a self pay kiosk at a phone store and looked up that number, which magically belonged to his stepdaughter Then, at his insistence, he and Todman visited the doctor, and the test results showed that he had no infections or diseases Todman on the other hand, refused to share her results with him Victor would have had the court believe, first, that Todman, who Victor admitted was the primary care giver and responsible for the family home housing ﬁve Victor v Todman 2024 V! 18 S Ct Civ No 20l8 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 55 of 57 children, somehow contracted a sexually transmitted disease and second, that Victor, who admitted he was, more or less daily, out of the family home from before daybreak until after I l 30 p m and oddly prefaced his entire explanation of this incident by indicating he was working part time at a KFC at the time had a clean bill of sexual health 1|l06 Although Victor repeats ad nauseam his assertion that Todman’s testimony is uncorroborated which it is not it is his testimony that lacks signiﬁcant corroboration and is internally contradictory While Todman’s testimony provided a minimum evidentiary factual record, as discussed above, in all material respects Todman s testimony was corroborated It is noteworthy that Laurie testiﬁed concerning Victor’s admission of his plan to fraudulently induce Todman into contracting away her right to a one half, undivided interest in 278 Hospital Ground, the real property that is at the heart of this controversy Likewise, Thevar testiﬁed as to Todman 5 lack of ability to read It cannot be said that the credibility determination implicit in the trial court’s ﬁnal judgment is utterly lacking in evidentiary support or irrational, such that it is lacking a rational relationship to the record evidence Indeed, had the credibility determination been the other way the factual support of such a determination would have been seriously questionable All factors relevant to the evaluation of whether Todman’s reliance upon Victor was reasonable support the conclusion that her actions were in fact, reasonable, and the trial court 5 conclusion was not wrong as a matter of law and was not an abuse of discretion D The Superior Court’s Allocation of the Mortgage Debt was Legally Incorrect and Factually Clearly Erroneous 1|107 Todman cross appeals the Superior Court’s judgment because, while reciting that Todman is only responsible for her share of liability on the mortgage ’ the judgment allocates the entire mortgage to Todman Just as she argued in her motion for correction ofjudgment, which the trial V1610: v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion ofthc Court Page 56 of 57 court denied as moot for lack of jurisdiction because the matter was already before this Court, Todman argues that, as a 50% c0 owner, at a maximum, her share of liability is $l 13,620 58 However, Victor requests that we vacate the trial court’s equitable distribution award because the trial court failed “to take the ﬁtrther step of determining each co tenant’s proportionate share of the 278 Property, based on their respective contributions, as shown by the evidence produced at trial But see In re Marriage ofMassee 970 P 2d 1203, 1209 10 (Or 1999) (“A homemaker [partner] contributes to the acquisition of assets, because the performance of domestic tasks by one [partner] frees the other to devote energy and concentration to other tasks that may generate assets ” (citations omitted» In various ways, detailed extensively above, Todman contributed her ﬁnances, labor, time, and emotional support to the development of the 278 Property The portion of the Superior Court’s Judgment ignoring all such contribution and placing the burden of the entire mortgage on Todman was an obvious abuse of discretion Therefore, in this regard, the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, and on remand the Superior Court is directed, after taking further evidence as to actual contributions and appropriately valuing support contributions, to enter a revisedjudgment See Demmmg v Demmmg, 66 V I 502, 51 1 (V I 20 l 7) ( On remand, the court shall consider [the plaintiff’s] unacknowledged contributions and also explain its calculation of [the parties’ opposing] interests in the property ); Kozlowskl, 395 A 2d at 920, Sparks v Sparks 485 N W 2d 893 897 (Mich 1992) ( In equity cases it is not enough for the trial court to have acted in a nonarbitrary manner; it must also reach a disposition that is fair and just ”) Ill CONCLUSION 11108 The trial court’s ﬁndings of fact that have been challenged are afﬁrmed Likewise, the trial court 5 application of the clear and convincing evidence standard is afﬁrmed While the proper V1610! v Todman 2024 VI 18 S Ct Civ No 2018 0045 Opinion of the Court Page 57 of 57 acknowledgement and recording of a deed makes it presumptively valid, the evidence established fraud in the inducement by clear and convincing evidence, thus overcoming the presumptive validity of the deed 11109 While, as a matter of ﬁndings of fact and legal analysis, the trial court was largely correct, in its ﬁnal application it stopped short of completion As Victor notes, simply rescinding the deed was not the end of the matter As Todman recognizes, the rescission had no legal effect beyond returning the parties to the rescinded quitclaim deed to their original positions prior to its execution, that is to say, Victor and Todman each held a one half, undivided interest in 278 Hospital Ground There still remained the task of actually determining the equities as to how much of the mortgage encumbers their respective one half interests Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court is partially vacated and the matter is remanded for the sole purpose of determining how much of Todman’s undivided half interest in the 278 Property should be burdened, if at all, by the mortgage Dated this 2"“ day of April, 2024 BY THE COURT ; IVE ARLINGT:% SWAN Associate Justice ATTEST VERONICA J HANDY ESQ Clerk of the Court By epu Clerk [I Date April Z, 202%

Related Cases