Lindway v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, Civil No. 80/10
| Decision Date | 02 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 80/10 |
| Parties | CYNTHIA L. LINDWAY, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Motion for court order compelling the government to pay judgment entered against it in action arising out of injuries received in an automobile accident on a defectively maintained highway. The District Court, O'Brien, J., held that since the. court had no statutory or case law authority to enter such an order, the motion would be denied.JOEL H. HOLT, ESQ., Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for plaintiff
DONALD M. BOUTON, ESQ., Attorney General, By: JOANN WEBB ANDERSON, Assistant Attorney General (Department of Law), Christiansted, St. Croix, V.I., for defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff in this case obtained a judgment against the Government of the Virgin Islands (the "Government") in the amount of $25,000.00, arising out of injuries received in an automobile accident on a defectively-maintained highway. Having achieved that result, however, the plaintiff is now faced with the dilemma, which confronts so many others seeking to enforce money judgments against the Government, of the notoriously slow pace of payment. The judgment was entered on October 6, 1981, but not a farthing has been paid.
Plaintiff returned to this Court to seek sanctions against the Government for its failure to pay the judgment. Oral argument was heard and memoranda were submitted. While we sympathize with the plaintiff and others who face the same predicament, we are unable, as a matter of law, to assist in the enforcement of this tort judgment.
Plaintiff's motion for the entry of an order to show cause is deemed a proceeding in mandamus.1 Plaintiff is basically requesting that this Court compel the Government to pay the $25,000 judgment. Virgin Islands law on proceedings in mandamus provides:
In an appropriate action, or upon an appropriate motion in an action, under the practice prescribed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in this title, the district court may issue a mandatory order to any inferior court, corporation, board, officer, or person, to compel performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. Although such order may require the court, corporation, board, officer, or person to exercise its or his judgment, or proceed to the discharge of any of its or his functions, the order shall not control judicial discretion. The order shall not be issued in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
5 V.I.C. § 1361(a) (1967) (emphasis added).
This section, however, makes no mention of the ability of this Court to compel a government to perform an act which the law deems as a duty. Even if one argues that governmental officers actually perform the activities of the government and therefore a proceeding against the government is in essence a proceeding against its officers this Court is inclined not to issue a mandatory order. The language used in section 1361 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 Islands Water and Power Authority (the "Authority"). The Authority, an incorporated instrumentality of the Government, permitted suits against it but prohibited any "execution or other judicial process" on the property owned by the Authority, including funds. 519 F.2d at 406 quoting 30 V.I.C. § 111(a) (1974). The Court, speaking through Judge Hastie, stated:
We think the relief sought here, a judicial order that would compel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brow v. Farrelly
...§ 479(a)(4) (1967 & Supp.1991) (all property of the Virgin Islands government is exempt from execution); see also Lindway v. Government of V.I., 19 V.I. 193, 194 (D.V.I.1982) (money judgment against Virgin Islands government cannot be enforced by writ of execution or writ of 11 The District......
-
Brow v. Farrelly, 92-7370
...479(a)(4) (1967 & Supp. 1991) (all property of the Virgin Islands government is exempt from execution); see also Lindway v. Government of V.I., 19 V.I. 193, 194 (D.V.I. 1982) (money judgment against Virgin Islands government cannot be enforced by writ of execution or writ of mandamus). 11. ......
-
United States v. Brow, 01-CV-4797 (NGG) (JMA)
...against the Virgin Islands government cannot be enforced by writ of execution or writ of mandamus." Id. (quoting Lindway v. Government of V.I., 19 V.I. 193, 194 (D.V.I. 1982)). In the instant Petition, Brow includes numerous allegations of conspiracy and wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. V......
-
Brow v. Gov't of the U.S. V.I., 11-CV-4314 (NGG)(JO)
...Islands government cannot be enforced by writ of execution or writ of mandamus." 994 F.2d at 1037 n.10 (quoting Lindway v. Gov't of V.I., 19 V.I. 193, 194 (D.V.I. 1982)). ...