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

Browne v. GoreS. Ct. Civ. No. 2011-0012Opinion of the CourtPage 3 of 10allow a continuance for Browne to appear through retained counsel because “[Gore] doesn’t livehere” and Browne had the opportunity to appear through counsel at the July 20, 2010 hearing,but neither he nor his counsel were present. (J.A. 45-46.) When Browne asked for a continuanceon the grounds that he could not proceed because he was not prepared to contest the FED matterthat day, the magistrate replied that Browne should have been prepared to address the FEDcomplaint the prior day. Finally, the magistrate informed Browne that if he did not appear thatafternoon to address the FED complaint, the default judgment issued the prior day would stand.The magistrate held a hearing on Gore’s FED complaint that afternoon, with both partiesappearing pro se. The following day, the magistrate entered judgment in favor of Gore anddirected Browne to immediately vacate No. 85 Catherine’s Rest. On July 27, 2010, Browne,through his retained counsel, filed a motion for stay of execution on the grounds that themagistrate lacked jurisdiction over the FED complaint because Browne and Gore had allegedlyentered into a mutual agreement for the purchase and sale of the property, and thus were nolonger in a landlord/tenant relationship. Browne also filed a motion for reconsideration onAugust 2, 2010, which set forth this same argument as grounds for vacating the judgment. In anAugust 3, 2010 Order, the magistrate denied the motion for stay of execution on the grounds thatBrowne’s “claim [that] the parties entered into a purchase/sell arrangement was disputed by[Gore] when this matter came on for a hearing,” and that “[t]he Court found [Gore]’s testimonyto be more credible than that of [Browne], and pointed out that any oral agreement would besubject to the doctrine of the applicable statute of frauds.” (J.A. 99.)Even though the magistrate had not yet ruled on his motion for reconsideration, Browne