Concepcion v. Soto, 75-1155

Decision Date07 July 1975
Docket NumberNo. 75-1155,75-1155
Citation519 F.2d 405
PartiesBenito CONCEPCION, Appellant, v. Menelio Cruz SOTO and Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Leroy A. Mercer, Christiansted, St. Croix, V. I., for appellant.

Verne A. Hodge, Atty. Gen. of the Virgin Islands, Emory W. Reisinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V. I., for appellee.

Before HASTIE, GIBBONS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

HASTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment that denied the petition of a judgment creditor for an order "commanding the . . . (Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority) to make payment of" a $20,000 money judgment, plus costs and an attorney's fee, entered against the Authority in a tort action for personal injury and property damage. Failure of the Authority to respond to the original complaint had resulted in imposition of liability by default. Thereafter, damages had been determined by a jury.

The Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority is an incorporated instrumentality of the Government of the Virgin Islands. In the Act of August 13, 1964, No. 1248, Sess.L.1964, 30 V.I.C. (1974 Supp.) § 103, the Legislature of the Virgin Islands created this corporate instrumentality, defined its functions and powers, authorized it to issue bonds and created and limited its amenability to judicial process. While the enumerated powers of the Authority included the capacity "to sue and be sued", 30 V.I.C. § 105(4), its amenability to judicial process was restricted by the following provision:

"All property including funds of the Authority shall be exempt from levy and sale by virtue of an execution, and no execution or other judicial process shall issue against the same nor shall any judgment against the Authority be a charge or lien upon its property; Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to or limit the right of bondholders to pursue any remedies for the enforcement of any pledge or lien given by the Authority on its rates, fees, revenues, or other income or any other funds." 30 V.I.C. (1974 Supp.) § 111(a).

We think that the relief sought here, a judicial order that would compel the Authority to surrender its assets in payment of a money judgment for tortious personal injury, is within the meaning of the quoted prohibitory language, since the order sought would be "judicial process" designed to reach the property of the Authority.

This does not make the right to sue the Authority or the obtaining of judgment against it meaningless. As a responsible agency the Authority can, and apparently does, 1 carry liability insurance.

Separately, the appellant contends that the quoted provision of Section 111(a) was in effect repealed by a subsequent comprehensive waiver of governmental immunity from tort...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Turbe v. Government of Virgin Islands
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 11, 1991
    ...30, Sec. 111(a) (1975). We have interpreted Sec. 111(a) as permitting WAPA to refuse to pay judgments entered against it. Concepcion v. Soto, 519 F.2d 405 (3d Cir.1975). But this provision does not grant full immunity to WAPA. Thus, a plaintiff may be able to satisfy a judgment against WAPA......
  • Durant v. Husband
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 24, 1994
    ...is nevertheless a "judgment by default" prohibited in actions brought under the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act. See Concepcion v. Soto, 519 F.2d 405, 407 n. 2 (3d Cir.1975). We emphasize that our holding applies to the situation where the government has failed to appear or file an answer in......
  • Durant v. Husband
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 24, 1994
    ...is nevertheless a "judgment by default" prohibited in actions brought under the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act. See Concepcion v. Soto, 519 F.2d 405, 407 n.2 (3d Cir. 1975). We emphasize that our holding applies to the situation where the government has failed to appear or file an answer in......
  • Lindway v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, Civil No. 80/10
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • July 2, 1982
    ...is permissive: "the district court may issue a mandatory order." Moreover, we think that the Third Circuit opinion of Concepcion v. Cruz Soto, 519 F.2d 405 (3rd Cir. 1975) is controlling. In Concepcion, the plaintiff was trying to enforce a tort judgment it obtained against the Virgin Islan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT