IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OPINION OF ...

Maso v. MoralesS. Ct. Civ. No. 2011-0068Opinion of the CourtPage 3 of 9but instead were based on Maso’s description of the vehicle and of damage to the car from theaccident as described in the police officer’s accident report. (App. 35.) According to Maso, shegave the body shops that were providing the estimates the car’s make and model and the policereport in order to generate the estimates. (App. 36.)On September 1, 2009, the magistrate held a hearing on Maso’s complaint. Maso andMorales both appeared and testified. Maso averred that Morales was at fault in causing theaccident as Morales admitted to her that she had taken her eyes off the road and did not seeMaso’s stopped vehicle. (App. 32.) Maso also indicated that when she purchased her car, it wasselling for $4,500.00, although because she was friends with the owners, she only paid $3,000.00for it. (App. 38.) Morales did not challenge the reasonableness of the repair amounts stated inthe estimates that Maso had submitted in support of her complaint. 3After hearing from bothparties, the magistrate indicated that the matter would be taken under advisement.Approximately five months later, on February 26, 2010, the magistrate issued an order findingthat while Morales had admitted fault—either to the officer directly, or, at the very least, whenshe paid her traffic ticket—“it is impossible to determine an amount of money that would makethe Plaintiff whole.” (App. 18.) The magistrate noted that there was no evidence that thesubsequent incineration was Morales’s fault, and “to award the Plaintiff the cost of repairs for avehicle that no longer exists would be a matter of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.” (App. 18.)On March 11, 2010, Maso petitioned the Superior Court’s Appellate Division for reviewof the magistrate’s decision. No action was taken on the case for six months until September 14,2010, when the Appellate Division judge issued a briefing schedule. Maso filed a brief on3 At the hearing, Morales cross-examined Maso (App. 33-37), but did not pose any questions to her directlychallenging the reasonableness of the amounts stated in the repair estimates. Morales also did not offer anytestimony challenging the reasonableness of those amounts on direct or cross-examination. (App. 39-48.)