Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2024

Desaree Arthurton-Garvey v. Deonte Garvey, as Trustee of Stephen Garvey Revocable Living Trust

Superior Court of The Virgin Islands · Decided September 18, 2024 · Andrews Jr., Alphonso G.

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX DESAREE ARTHURTON GARVEY Plaintiff Case No SX 2024 CV 284 V. DEONTE GARVEY an individual and as Trustee of the STEPHEN GARVEY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AZARIA GARVEY, an individual and as THE STEPHEN GARVEY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST CHARMAINE IGENA SMITH an individual DODEANNA LEONARD an individual EDWARDO GOMEZ an individual ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN PLOT NO 27 ESTATE LOWRY HILL ALL PERSONS 0R ENTITIES CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN PLOT NO 56 A ESTATE RUBY and ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY CONTAINED IN THE STEPHEN GARVEY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST

Defendants Cite as 2024 VI Super 34U MEMORANDUM OPINION (Filed September 18 2024) Andrews, Jr , Judge INTRODUCTION 111 Plaintiff files suit to quiet title in certain properties titled in either her Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 2 name her now deceased husband 5 (i e Stephen Garvey) name or in both She claims prior to his death Mr Garvey illegally transferred real and personal marital property to several individuals and she seeks a declaratory judgment clarifying ownership of the properties Plaintiff also seeks an injunction prohibiting all Defendants from possessing transferring selling disbursing or dissipating the properties Pending ﬁnal determination by the Court Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo This opinion addresses Plaintiff's emergency motion and will deny it FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 THE PARTIES Plaintiff Desaree Arthurton Garvey resides at 27 Estate Lowry Hill in St Croix Virgin Islands Compl 2 11 3 Stephen Garvey (Mr Garvey) is the deceased husband of Plaintiff Compl 4 1| 14 He died on June 14 2024 Compl 16 1] 72' Ex 5 They were married on May 11 2012 and no children were born to the marriage Pl 5 Aff 9 Mr Garvey is the father of defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey Compl 3 11 6 In or about 2022 he was diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer and his health deteriorated Compl 11 111] 49 50 Defendant Deonte Garvey resides in North Carolina Compl 2 1] 4 Defendant Azaria Garvey resides in Georgia Compl 3 1] 5

1 The facts are derived from undisputed complaint allegations exhibits ﬁled with the complaint and the parties in court proffers at a hearing held on August 28 2024 They are undisputed for the most part and any disputed fact is specially noted Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V | Super 34U Page 3 Defendant Deodeanna Leonard resides on St Croix and is Mr Garveys ex wife Compl 3 1] 7 Defendant Charmaine Igena Smith is a resident of St Croix Virgin Islands Compl 3 1] 9 Defendant Edwardo Gomez is a resident of St Croix Virgin Islands Comp! 31] 10 REAL PROPERTY Estate Lowm Hill On January 26 2010 ownership of 27 Estate Lowry Hill St Croix Virgin Islands was transferred to Plaintiff and Mr Garvey as joint tenants with rights of survivorship Pl 3 Aff Ex 1a On June 13 2024 Mr Garvey executed a deed of gift purportedly transferring his interest in that property to defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey Compl 15 1] 69 Pl 8 Aff Ex 2a Plaintiff claims defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey have been changing passwords on accounts for her security system and electric bill for the property Compl 17 1] 79' Pl 3 Profier This conduct she alleges limits her access to vital information regarding the accounts ﬂ 1] 80 A Estate Ruby During the marriage Mr Garvey purchased Plot 56A Estate Ruby St Croix Virgin Islands consisting of 3 4 acres of land 2 PI 9 Aff Ex 1 at 7 Compl 6 1] 20 He subdivided and transferred the property by deed as follows

2itﬁnclear from Plaintiff’s Emergency motion if this property was title in Stephen Garvey 3 name oniy The Plaintiff only asserts that it was bought with marital funds The Court presumes the property was titled only in Mr Garvey 5 name Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 4

Plot Size Transferee Date of Transfer A A A 5 acres Sarah Duggins 12/19/20 56A A 5 acres James Newton 12/29/20 56A C 5 acres A and M Williams 01/04/21 Remainder 56A 593 acres Latisha Jenkins 01/31/21 56A B 3 and 56A B 235 acres Deonte Garvey 01/08/24 Plot 56A B 2 232 acres Deonte Garvey 02/08/24 Plot 56A B 1 248 acres Dimitrous Jefferson 02/12/24 Compl 61122 Pl sAff Exs 1| 1] 1K 1L 1M 1N 1O PERSONAL PROPERTY IN STEVEN GARVEY TRUST On March 11 2024 a trust was created named Stephen Garvey Revocable Living Trust (SGRLT) Compl Ex 3 It was settled by Mr Garvey lg Defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey are named as trustees in the trust Compl Ex 3 Various personal property (purchased by Mr Garvey) a business and two bank accounts were placed in the trust as follows 3 Emergency Mot for TRO 8 1] 25

3 In her Emergency Motion Plaintiff lists three (3) items as being contained in the SGLRT ie two 2017 Acuras and one 2015 Hyundai Sonata Emergency Mot for TRO 2 3 Those items however are not in the trust document ﬁled with the Court PI sAff Ex 3 At the August 28 2024 hearing Plaintiff proffered that the vehicles were purchased and titled in Innovative Used Car Sales name who is not a named defendant She proffered that the Acura s are in the possession of an unnamed mechanic who is not a defendant in this case She also proffered that the Sonata is at an unknown location As those items appear not be connected to any named defendant the Court excludes them from its analysis regarding the issuance of a restraining order Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 VI Super34U Page 5 Innovative Used Car Sales In or about 2017 Stephen Garvey began operating a business named Innovative Used Car Sales Comp! 10 1] 46 The tradename Innovative Used Car Sales was placed in the SGRLT Compl Ex 3 at4'|]4a Checking Account Bank of St Croix The SGRLT contains a checking account with number 700008658 Compl Ex 4 1] 4b Savings Account PFCU During the marriage Plaintiff and Mr Garvey opened a joint savings account with Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PFCU) Account No 2593183 01 1 Marital funds and rental income earned during the marriage were deposited into the account Compl 10 1145 The savings account was placed in the SGRLT Compl Ex 3 at 40 Plaintiff claims Mr Garvey gave defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey passwords to the PFCU and other accounts held jointly by Mr Garvey and her Compl 17 1| 81 Additionally Plaintiff claims that Deonte and Azaria Garvey have access to her other accounts including her VIYA internet Liberty telephone USAA vehicle insurance CIGNA health insurance her credit cards and Mr Garvey 8 Apple account Compl 18 1] 83 In June 2024 Plaintiff withdrew $22 500 00 from the joint savings account to protect it from being taken by Mr Garvey PI 3 Aff Ex 1 at 9 60 2014 Case Backhoe The SGRLT contains a 2014 Case Backhoe with Serial No Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 6 JJGN580NVEC700199 Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 4d Plaintiff claims defendant Smith received $60 000 on May 27 2024 for a backhoe Compl 16 1] 76 On May 27 2024 a $60 000 check made to defendant Charmaine Smith from K E C A Heavy Equipment in Tortola for a Backhoe was deposited into a First Bank Account supposedly owned by Charmaine Smith Exs 29 2h Proffer of C Smith She shortly thereafter transferred the funds to two or three individuals as instructed by Mr Garvey Proffer of C Smith Plaintiff claims defendant Gomez is in possession of the backhoe and refuses to release it to her Compl 77 To the contrary Gomez claims Mr Garvey and he purchased the backhoe in 2021 for $70 000 and each contributed $35 000 towards its purchase Proffer of E Gomez It is unclear whether the backhoe Plaintiff associates with the $60 000 payment is the same backhoe that Gomez proffered he possesses or whether any of them is the 2014 Case Backhoe named in the trust Skid Steer Case 2011 The SGRLT contains a 201 1 Skid Steer with Serial No JAFTR320HBM440188 Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 4e Chevrolet 2013 The SGRLT contains a silver 2013 Chevrolet with VIN 1GBBKZCB8DF153780 Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 4f Mercedes 2019 The SGRLT contains a 2019 Mercedes GLC with VIN WDCOJ6EBXKF508092 Compl Ex 3 at 4 1] 49 The vehicle was titled in Stephen Garvey 8 name since June Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 VI Super 34U Page 7 2021 Pl 5 Aff Ex 1h Plaintiff claims the car was purchased for and driven by her and that Mr Garvey stated he would transfer title to her Compl 10 1] 47 Emergency Mot for TRO 16 1111 34 Suzuki 2022 The SGRLT contains a 2022 Suzuki Haya motor bike with VIN JS1EJ11B7N7100095 Compl Ex 3 at41I4h Avanti 1997 The SGRLT contains a 1997 Avanti Boat with Vessel Identification No ERQS1205A797 Compl Ex 3 at41I4i On April30 2024 Stephen Garvey executed a bill of sale to sell the boat to Egbert Damon Wheater for $78 000 00 Pl 3 Supp Aff Ex 20 Ba|a 1996 The SGRLT contains a 1996 Baja Boat with Identiﬁcation No AGCG3197F596 Compl Ex 3 at 4 11 4k On April 30 2024 Mr Garvey executed a bill of sale to sell the boat to Egbert Damon Wheater of Anegada British Virgin Islands for $40 000 00 Pl sSupp Aff Ex 2b On May 17 2024 Wheatley submitted a telegraphic transfer of $60 000 from his bank account in Tortola BVI to Popular Bank in St Croix for the benefit of defendant Deodeanna Leonard as a deposit for payment of the boats (presumably the Avanti and Baja) Compl Supp Aff Ex 2d The paymentcleared the same day Q defendant Leonard denies ever receiving the funds Proffer by D Leonard On May 22 2024 a $58 000 check made to defendant Charmaine Smith from Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V | Super 34U Page 8 K E C A Heavy Equipment in Tortola for for final payment 2 boats (presumably the Avanti and Baja) was deposited into Charmaine Smith s First Bank Account LBS 2c 2f Proffer of C Smith She shortly thereafter transferred the funds to two or three individuals as instructed by Stephen Garvey Proffer of C Smith BEAC 2005 The SGRLT contains a 2005 BEAC with VIN 4XWW32375N808140 Compl Ex 3 at 4 11 4j Town 2000 The SGRLT contains a 2000 Town with VIN 5AZBBZ729YF007069 Compl Ex at 4 1] 4k DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS On May 3 2024 Plaintiff ﬁled a divorce complaint against Stephen Garvey Compl 14 1] 65 Pursuant to her motion the divorce court issued a Standing Order on May 20 2024 prohibiting Plaintiff and Mr Garvey from among other things a Destroying transferring or otherwise harming or reducing the value of the property of either party and b selling transferring assigning mortgaging encumbering or in any other manner alienating any of the property of either party whether personal property or real estate property and whether separate or community Standing Order Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Fam No SX 2024 DI 044 OMS 14 05 24 The order does not specify any personal or real estate property lg On June 2024 the Family Court dismissed the proceedings with prejudice in light of Mr Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 9 Garvey 5 death on June 14 2024 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed her complaint on August 20 2024 On August 23 2024 she ﬁled the instant emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction No answer to the complaint nor response to the motion was filed by any of the defendants On August 28 2024 the Court held a hearing on the motion Plaintiff appeared through counsel Kye Walker Esq Defendants Deodeanna Leonard Charmaine Smith and Edwardo Gomez appeared in person without counsel4 The Court heard proffers from the parties and took the matter under advisement APPLICABLE LAW Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief This is an equitable as opposed to a legal remedy 3RC & Co v Boynes Trucking System 63 VI 544 553 (VI 2015) A trial court has wide latitude in considering such remedies ﬂ Such relief is only available where there is no adequate remedy at law |_d at 554 As such a party seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate that the injunction is necessary to avoid certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award does not adequately 4 The Court notes that although the complaint herein was ﬁled on August 20 2024 and the Motion for Restraining Order on August 23 2024 neither document was served on any of the defendants by the time of the August 28"1 hearing However the defendants who appeared for the hearing were served by court marshals with summons to appear and were given copies of the complaint for review before commencement of the hearing The remaining two defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey who reside in the U S mainland per court documents were not served and did not appear at the hearing Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 10 compensate E citing Yusuf v Hamed 59 V I 841 854 (V l 2013) Virgin Islands rules provide that a temporary restraining order may issue only where the moving party presents facts in the complaint or an afﬁdavit which clearly show that an immediate and irreparableinjury loss or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition V I R Civ 65 The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has recognized four factors required for the issuance of injunctive relief (1)whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits (2)whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the relief (3)whether granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party and (4)whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest Yusuf v Hamed 59 V l 841 847 (V I 2013) The court must balance all factors under a sliding scale analysis while weighing the relative strengths of each Boynes Trucking System u at 555 57 Thus a weak showing of irreparable harm may be overcome by a strong showing on the merits and visa versa Q at

ANALYSIS Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from transferring selling gifting disbursing withdrawing or Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 11 dissipating the real and personal property mentioned in her motion' and from interfering with accessing or modifying her or Stephen Garvey 3 accounts Mot for TRO 17 18 None of the defendants were served with her complaint or emergency motion The Court will thus only consider her motion for a temporary restraining order and will deny it for the reasons that follow 5 To obtain her requested relief Plaintiff much establish a) she will suffer imminent irreparable harm if relief is denied b) there is a reasonable probability she will succeed on the merits c) the grant of a restraining order will not result in greater harm to Defendants and d) the grant of a restraining order is in the public interest6 V I R Civ P 65(b)(1) The Court will address each factorseparately IMMINENT IRREPARABLE HARM Real Estate Lowm Hill Plaintiff claims defendants Deonte and Azaria Garvey are interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her residence located at 27 Estate Lowry Hill St Croix Virgin Islands She claims they changed passwords on accounts connected to the

5 A preliminary injunction may issue only on notice to the adverse party V I R Civ P 65(a)(1) Since none of the defendants were served with notice of Plaintiff’s complaint or motion for injunctive relief this Court will not address the motion for preliminary injunction until notice is served on them Virgin Islands law however permits the issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party under certain conditions VIR Civ P 65(b)(1) Under Virgin Island law a plaintiff must also certify her efforts to give notice to and provide reasons why it should not be required At the hearing Plaintiff proffered that she submitted her complaint and motion to a process server and requested expedited service Nevertheless service was not effected Under the circumstances the Court ﬁnds that Plaintiff is in substantial compliance with the notice requirements Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V l Super 34U Page 12 residence thus impacting her ability to access and manage home utility bills vehicle and health insurance accounts credit cards and home security systems and exposes her to possible unwanted surveillance Emergency Mot for TRO 14 111] 56 59 The nature of this harm is not susceptible to monetary repair There is no way to reasonably calculate the value of the inconvenience burden and related stress of inability to pay one 5 utility bills inability to manage one s home security system electronically being potentially exposed to unwanted surveillance Such harm the Courtfinds is imminent and irreparable Real Estate Ruby Plaintiff claims Mr Garvey prior to his death subdivided and transferred several lots from 56A Estate Ruby to some Defendants and other individuals besides her She claims Defendants are using the conveyance to cloud the title of the properties Emergency Mot for TRO 20 However the only defendant alleged to have any connection with the Ruby property is Deonte Garvey Notably Plaintiff has not sued any of the other ﬁve (5) transferees of the Ruby property nor claim that the conveyances to them were invalid or causing her harm She does not assert she is or ever was in possession of 56A Estate Ruby nor any of its subdivisions She does not explain how Deonte Garvey is allegedly clouding title to the properties As per Plaintiff title to 56A was originally in Stephen Garvey 3 name solely until he subdivided and sold lots therefrom Under the circumstances Plaintiff has not established how Deonte Garvey or any defendant is clouding title Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 13 or otherwise harming Plaintiff at all much less irreparany Personal Property in Stephen Garvey Trust The Stephen Garvey Trust contains the business trade name Innovative Used Car Sales 2 bank accounts 2 pieces of heavy equipment (i e a Case Backhoe and a Skid Steer)' 2 vehicles (a Chevrolet Truck and a Mercedes SUV) a Suzuki Haya motor bike 2 boats (an Avanti and a Baja) a BEAC (2005) and a Town vehicle Pl 3 Aff Ex 3 at 4 Plaintiff asserts generally that she suffered signiﬁcant loss of property due to Mr Garveys duplicitous actions in fraudulently conveying their marital property to various third parties Emergency Mot for TRO The trustees she claims are asserting their claims to the property ﬂ Plaintiff states she has been unable to take possession of the backhoe belonging to the marital estate due to defendant Gomez refusing to relinquish possession which puts their sale at risk lg at 23 Defendants Plaintiff contends may divest her of possession of all her property before the Court could resolve her complaint allegations Plaintiff does not allege that she ever had possession of any of the property listed in the trust other than the joint savings account Her main claim of harm is her assertion of title and right to possession of property transferred to Defendants All trust assets are susceptible to monetary valuation Accordingly any loss Plaintiff may suffer through deprivation of possession can be compensated for through money damages 3R0 & Co 63 VI at 553 (stating party seeking Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et A!

2024 V I Super 34U Page 14 injunctive relief must show certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award does not adequately compensate ) In short her alleged harm is not irreparable 7 SUCCESS ON THE MERITS Real Estate Lowg Hill Plaintiff seeks to restrain defendants Deonte and Azaria Garvey from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her residence located at 27 Estate Lowry Hill St Croix Virgin Islands She and Mr Garvey acquired the property on January 26 2010 as joint tenants with rights of survivorship PI s Afr Ex 1a On June 13 2024 Mr Garvey executed a deed of gift purportedly transferring his interest in 27 Estate Lowry Hill to defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey Compl 15 11 69 In a joint tenancy both parties possess equal rights in the enjoyment of the property during their lifetime LaForce v Estate of LaForce 72 VI 312 317 (Sup Ct 2019) Due to this right the death of one joint tenant automatically causes the entire estate to pass directly to the survivor tenant ﬂ citing In re Estate of Phillip 41 VI 37 41 (VI Terr Ct 1999) Sassov Hackett No 8X 02 538 2020V| LEXIS 44 at 6 (Super Ct Apr 8 2020) (stating upon death of a tenant the other became the sole owner of the property held as joint tenants with rights of survivorship ) Davis v Grasso No ST 07 CV 365 2009 V I LEXIS 58 at 1 n 1 (Super Ct Nov 17 2009) (stating decedent and co tenant

7 With respect to the joint savings account Plaintiff alieged she has already withdrawn one half of $45 000 00 that was in the account Having secured her share it is unclear what loss she suffers regarding the account Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 15 owned property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and ownership passed to co tenant upon death of decedent by operation of law) As such when Stephen Garvey died on June 24 2024 Plaintiff the surviving tenant became the sole owner of 27 Estate Lowry Hill The June 13 2024 deed purporting to transfer Garvey 3 share to defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey is thus a nullity Accordingly Plaintiff’s success on the merits regarding the Lowry Hill property is extremely strong Real Estate Ruby Property Plaintiff claims No 56A Estate Ruby is marital property and she has titie as part of the marital estate of Mr Garvey and her Emergency Mot for TRO 20 Her reliance on divorce law regarding marital property is misplaced Virgin Islands law vests jurisdiction in the Family Division of this Court when issuing final divorce orders to equitably distribute the marital property of the parties 16 V l C § 109(a)(7) This includes with certain exceptions real and personal property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage M The right to equitably distribute marital property thus exists solely in the context of a divorce proceeding Smithv Henley 67Vl 965 976 (VI 2017) (stating [w]here a party in a divorce proceeding is unable to prove that property was either acquired prior to the marriage or is subject to the enumerated exceptions the property is considered marital property ) (emphasis supplied) and Inniss v lnniss 65 V I 275 (V l 2016) (stating 16 V I C 109(a)(7) grants the Superior Court Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et At 2024 V I Super 34U Page 16 jurisdiction to equitably distribute marital property during a divorce proceeding ) (emphasis supplied)' LaForce v Estate of LaForce 72 VI 312 319 (Super Ct 2019) (stating the petitioner could not claim property as marital property because that doctrine has exclusive use in domestic relations and divorce ) Therefore absent a pending divorce or dissolution proceeding this court is without authority to restrain or distribute marital property The Court 5 potential jurisdiction over marital property does not preclude any spouse from unilaterally managing or disposing of his or her separate property without knowiedge or consent of the other during the marriage where no divorce proceedings have been instituted 8 See 16 V I C § 67 (providing that [t]he husband and wife shall have the right to manage and dispose of their respective estates except as othen/vise provided in this chapter ) Accordingly Plaintiff's reliance on the Virgin Islands definition of marital property is misplaced Such definition is limited to the purposes and authority stated in 16 V | C § 109(a) See V l C 109(a)(7) (stating the definition of marital property is for purposes of this paragraph ) Here there is no pending divorce proceeding as it was dismissed on June

8In support of her marital property argument Plaintiff asserts that Mr Garvey purchased the property with marital funds Emergency Mot for TRO 8 11 25 Other than her bald assertion she presents no evidence nor argument regarding the basis of her knowledge as to the source of funds Mr Garvey used to purchase the property Further most of the Ruby lots were transferred before tension in the relationship increased in 2022 The Court thus ﬁnds insufﬁcient evidence of any fraud associated with Mr Garveys purchase or subsequent conveyance of the Ruby property Arthurton Garveyv Garvey El Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 17 2024 subsequent to Stephen Garveys death Even if one were pending all of the Estate Ruby properties (i e the subdivisions) were transferred to the trust prior to ﬁling of the divorce complaint on May 3 2024 (or the issuance of the standing order on May 20 2024) and would not have constituted marital property Accordingly Stephen Garvey was free to dispose of his separate Ruby properties without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent Accord Fournier v Fournier 376 A 2d 102 (Sup C t Maine 1977) (interpreting almost identical definition of marital property and stating the Act does not prevent married persons from owning property separately during marriage and disposing of it in any fashion either of them may choose assuming neither a separation nor a divorce intervenes ) Under the circumstances Plaintiff has no interest nor rights in the Ruby property disposed of by Stephen Garvey Her success on the merits regarding the Ruby property is thus extremely weak Personal Property Steven Garvey Trust The Stephen Garvey Trust was created on March 4 2024 and contains the business trade name Innovative Used Car Sales (a business that Stephen Garvey was licensed to operate) a joint savings account at PFCU a checking at Bank of St Croix 2 pieces of heavy equipment (i e a Case Backhoe and a Skid Steer) a Chevrolet Truck' a Mercedes (SUV) titled in Stephen Garvey 3 name a Suzuki Haya motor bike 2 boats (an Avanti and a Baja)' a BEAC (2005) and a Town vehicle Pl 3 Aff Ex 1 at 5 7 Plaintiff does not claim ownership to any of Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024Vl Super34U Page 18 the trust property except the joint savings account She claims Garvey bought the trust property with marital income and it therefore constitutes marital property which could not be conveyed without her knowledge and consent PI 5 Aff Ex 1 at? Emergency Mot for TRO 151162 The trust she concludes is thus invalid as it composed ofinvalid and fraudulent conveyances Mot for TRO 21 Plaintiff misconstrues applicable law To establish a valid trust there must be 1) a valid conveyance of trust property' 2) a settlor who intends to create a trust 3) a conveyance to a trustee to hold legal title and 4) legal title that is held for the benefit of a third party beneﬁciary Turnbull Wheatley v Turnbull No 2019 062 2024 VI Supreme LEXIS 24 at 17 (Sup Ct Jun 5 2024) Plaintiff’s sole attack on the trust targets only the first element i e the validity of the conveyance of property into the trust without her knowledge and consent Contrary to Plaintiff s assertion the assets placed in the trust were Garvey 3 separate property which he was free to dispose of as he saw ﬁt as explained above He conveyed them into the trust on March 14 2024 before commencement of the May 4 2024 divorce proceedings Upon conveyance title to those assets were vested in the trustee and Mr Garvey lost title to them ﬁg v Aggleton 61 VI 339 (VI 2014) citing Robert L Glicksman Sustainable Federal Land Management Protecting Ecological Integrity and Preserving Environmental Principal 44 Tulsa L Rev 147 179 80 (2008) (stating that atrust Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 19 mechanism vests legal title to trust property in a trustee ) The assets thus ceased to be marital property Accordingly Plaintiff's challenge to the validity of the trust and her claim to trust property is weak HARM TO DEFENDANTS Real Estate Lowg Hill The only defendants potentially impacted by a restraining order applicable to the Lowry Hill property are Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey As they are not in possession of the property and appear to have no legal right to possession or title they will bear no harm if a restraining order was issued as requested by Plaintiff Real Estate Ruby Plaintiff seeks an order restraining the owners of the Ruby properties from transferring selling gifting dissipating etc their lots Deonte Garvey is the only defendant in possession of any Ruby property and thus the only one a restraining order would impact Such an order would restrict and hamper his ability to encumber and/or dispose of the property as he sees fit He would thus suffer harm if a restraining order is issued restricting his use of the property Personal Property Steven Garvey Trust Plaintiff’s restraining order request regarding trust property is ambiguous for the most part The property was transferred to the trust on March 14 2024 and provided for distribution to Deonte and Azaria Garvey upon Mr Garvey 6 death Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 20 Comp! Ex 3 However some property are no longer in the trust or control of any defendant Assessing harm to the named defendants under those circumstances is impossible in some instances as explained below It is unclear who currently has control over the tradename Innovative Used Car Sales or what conduct by which defendant Plaintiff seeks to restrain Assessing harm regarding this asset is thus not possible There is no information as to what amount of funds if any is in the Bank of St Croix Checking or the Pentagon Federal Credit Union Savings accounts Assuming they contain funds and defendants Deonte and Azaria Garvey can access them they would suffer harm if the Court were to restrict their use It is unclear whether the 2014 Case Backhoe is the machine allegedly sold to Wheatley in Tortola or is the backhoe defendant Gomez proffered was bought by Mr Garvey and him Nevertheless restraining Gomez use of the backhoe he possesses for business use would cause him harm Plaintiff proffered that she has possession at Lowry Hill of three vehicles placed in the trust the 2019 Mercedes the 2013 Chevy Silverado and the 2022 Suzuki Haya She seeks an order restraining defendants generally from attempting to remove them There is no evidence that any defendant has made any such attempt Nevertheless the Court sees no harm resuiting to any defendant should a restraining order be issued No evidence was presented regarding the location or possessor of the 2011 Skid Steer or the 2000 Town or the 2005 BEAC vehicles As such the Court cannot assess any harm relative a Arthurton Garvey v Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 21 restraining order as to them None of the defendants are in possession of the £91 Avanti Boat the 1996 Sam Boat or the proceeds from their sales An order as Plaintiff requests requiring defendants Smith and Leonard to return any proceeds they may have possessed would create a serious hardship to them Furthermore such an order would not constitute a restraining order PUBLIC INTEREST An analysis of the three forgoing factors leads the Court to decline issuance of restraining order as explained below Consideration of the public interest factor generally supports the Courts conclusion after analyzing the first three factors For this reason the Court will not conduct a detailed analysis of the public interest factor CONCLUSION Deonte and Azaria Garvey The main harm Plaintiff alleges with respect to defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey is their interference with her utility internet and security accounts regarding the Lowry Hill property Although the applicable factors weigh in favor of issuing a restraining order this Court declines to do so The Court takes judicial notice that the accounts impacted by the defendants alleged interference are of the nature that the owner can simply contact the respective provider and change the password and username or restrict access Here Plaintiff has a deed to the Lowry Hill property but has not sought to remedy her concern by simply Arthurton Garvey v Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 22 contacting the provider As injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and Plaintiff has a simple practical alternative avenue for relief issuance of a restraining order is unwarranted As explained above Plaintiff has not established how Deonte Garvey is harming her with respect to the Ruby property and her claim on the merits regarding that property is weak Deonte would suffer harm should an order issue restricting his use of two Ruby properties transferred to him With respect to personal property in the trust Plaintiff has not shown any imminent harm by Deonte and Azarias alleged possession of username and passwords to the checking and savings account nor has she shown she would likely succeed on the merits regarding her claim to the accounts With respect to the savings account Plaintiff clearly has an alternative means of relief since the account is jointly held in her name Charmaine Smith and Dodeanna Leonard Plaintiff claims defendants Charmaine Smith and Dodeanna Leonard are unlawfully in possession of funds from the proceeds of the Wheatley conveyances Mot for TRO 17 11 71 She thus seeks an order requiring the transfer of such proceeds to the Court Such an order is inappropriate under the circumstances First Plaintiff has not established any irreparable harm she would bear if the proceeds were not returned This is so because she has not demonstrated any Arthurton Garvey v Garvey Et Al 2024 V | Super 34U Page 23 pre sale entitlement to the boats and backhoe that were sold Further Leonard proffered that she never received the proceeds and Smith proffered she received them on behalf of Mr Garvey and disposed of them as he instructed Under these circumstances it would be an unjustifiable hardship should these defendants be required to deposit the proceeds (for which there is no evidence they currently possess) in the Court 3 registry More significantly however the harm claimed is purely monetary and can adequately be remedied via a monetary award Issuance of a restraining order is thus inappropriate Edwardo Gomez Plaintiff claims defendant Edwardo Gomez is in possession of a backhoe that was placed in the trust and he should be restrained from disposing of it in any way She seeks an order restraining him from disposing of the machine The backhoe she claims was purchased by Wheater who paid defendant Smith $60 000 for it on May 27 2024 See Pls Supp Aff Ex 2 2h Gomez proffered however that he purchased the backhoe in 2021 and still possesses it It is thus unclear which backhoe Plaintiff seeks to restrain She has failed to establish any harm resulting from Gomez continued possession of the backhoe in his possession and has failed to establish any legal right to it Gomez on the other hand would suffer harm if restricted as to his right to dispose of the machine which he proffers were purchased partly by him Under the circumstances the issuance of a restraining order is inappropriate Arthurton Garveyv Garvey Et Al 2024 V I Super 34U Page 24 After balancing the applicable factors as to each Defendant this Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish any cognizable harm she suffers from any of Defendants conduct other than the interference of her security and utility accounts by defendants Deonte Garvey and Azaria Garvey Her likelihood of success on the merits with respect to defendants Leonard Smith and Gomez is weak The harm she claims to suffer from the conduct of Deonte and Azaria is not imminent and can be remedied via monetary damages or other nonjudicial means available to her See V I R Civ P 65(b)(1)(A) (requiring injury or loss to be immediate and irreparable to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining order ) Accordingly the Court declines to issue a temporary restraining order against any of the defendants in this matter An order consistent herewith will be issued contemporaneously

DATE September 18 2024 E ALPHONSOG ANDREWS JR Superior Court Judge Attest TAMARA CHARLES CLERK OE T:H2?URT

CO m RT \E\\\ LE K-m DATE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St. Croix Desaree Arthurton-Garvey, Case Number: SX-2024-CV-00284 Plaintiff Action: Quiet Title v. Deonte Garvey et al Defendant.

NOTICE of ENTRY of Memorandum Opinion To Kye Walker, Esq. [email protected] : Charmaine Smith Edwardo Gomez Dodeanna Leonard Deonte Garvey Azaria Garvey

Please take notice that on September 18, 2024 a(n) Memorandum Opinion dated September 18, 2024 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated September 18, 2024 Tamara Charles : Clerk of the Court By:

Dayanara Felix Court Clerk Supervisor

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.