Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marsh-Monsanto v. Clarenbach

Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands

Decided February 10, 2017No. S. Ct. Civil No. 2014-0075Published

1DissentSwan, Associate Justice

Although the majority reverses the trial court’s declaratory judgment that the defendants were the rightful owners of Parcel 6-U Estate Carolina, it affirms the ruling that Marsh-Monsanto’s claim was time-barred because she first noticed bulldozers on the subject property in 1982, more than twenty years before she filed her lawsuit. Because this action should not have proceeded in the absence of the other registered owners of the property — Marsh-Monsanto’s siblings — I dissent.

1. The Marsh Heirs were Necessary Parties to the Lawsuit.

A March 21, 1982 partition deed exists by and between…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Tolan v. CottonSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  3. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. PyettSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API