ST. CROIX — A federal judge recently found plaintiff Ida Smith in contempt of court for violating previously-issued orders in connection to a St. John land dispute the District Court settled about 10 years ago when it ruled in favor of the defendants and entered judgment against Smith.
Chief Judge Robert Molloy, in a March 31 order, granted the defendants’ motion for finding of contempt and imposition of appropriate sanctions against Smith.
Molloy, in his seven-page order, found that Smith intentionally violated two previous court orders that confirmed the boundary of the disputed property in Coral Bay. The judge found that Smith failed to perform specific actions set forth in one of the orders that would have cleared herself of contempt.
Smith, who ran for delegate to Congress in the 2024 general election, originally filed a complaint on March 24, 2011 in District Court, Division of St. Thomas/St. John to determine the boundary lines of Estate John’s Folly in Coral Bay. She claimed she was a legal heir to land in Estate John’s Folly that was deeded to her ancestors over 100 years ago. She subsequently filed a first and second amended complaint, asking the court to determine that certain property the defendants claimed as part of Estate Friise was in fact part of Estate John’s Folly and grant her ownership of that property.
The defendants — siblings Paul Hoffman and Jane Hoffman-Walker, and David Bornn, trustee of the GAF Trust — filed a motion seeking judgment on the claims asserted against them. On September 30, 2015, then-District Judge Curtis Gómez granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Smith’s claims against them. Gómez wrote in his memorandum opinion that the litigation was one more chapter in an approximately 50-year land dispute.
Smith filed in District Court a notice of lis pendens, or a public notice that a property is subject to ongoing litigation. When she failed to remove the lis pendens as ordered, the court found her in contempt. After Smith filed a second lis pendens, the court requested her to submit certified proof obtained from the Recorder of Deeds that both lis pendens were removed from the public record. Smith never removed them.
The court entered another judgment on March 28, 2017 against Smith, dismissing her second amended complaint for lack of standing and closing the case. Over two years later, Smith filed a motion to reopen and for relief. By order entered on March 19, 2021, the court denied the motion and ordered the case closed pursuant to the court’s judgment dismissing Smith’s second amended complaint.
Thereafter, the Hoffmans moved for an order to show cause why Smith should not be held in contempt and for other relief. On April 24, 2023, the court granted the motion, directing Smith to show cause within 10 days why she should not be held in contempt of court for violating the court’s orders. Smith failed to comply with any of the court’s orders, including failing to show cause why she should not be held in contempt.
Molloy found Smith’s conduct constituted acts of contempt of court because she violated the court’s outstanding orders by recording two invalid notices of lis pendens against the Hoffmans’ property and caused to be recorded an invalid “Notice of Patent” to further cloud the Hoffmans’ title.
Smith’s conduct, described in the Hoffmans’ motion, clearly has caused the Hoffmans harm by placing a cloud on their title in complete defiance of the orders of the District Court and other courts of the Virgin Islands, Molloy wrote in his order. The judge noted that Smith also caused the Hoffmans harm by trespassing on their property in reliance upon the unlawfully recorded invalid documents.
Molloy ordered Smith to pay the court $100 per day from the date of receipt of his order, which was sent via certified mail, until she causes her improper notices of lis pendens to be removed and duly recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds and submits to the court clear evidence of her compliance. In the event Smith clears her contempt within 14 days from the date of receipt of the order, such amounts will be rescinded.
Additionally, Smith has 14 days to remove a storage trailer and all other illegally placed items from the Hoffmans’ property, including a pole, rope, and sign. If she fails to remove the items within the period, the Hoffmans are authorized to dispose of them and recover from Smith the reasonable cost of removal upon submission of receipts to the court.
Furthermore, Smith must pay defendants their costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the bringing of the motion for order to show cause and motion for sanctions as compensation for her contempt. Although the court stopped short of imposing incarceration or finding criminal contempt, the court gave Smith notice that further disobedient conduct would result in the imposition of more severe sanctions and may include imprisonment, either as a civil sanction to coerce compliance or as a criminal sanction to punish her disobedience.
Smith must comply with all directives in Molloy’s order within 14 days to clear herself of contempt and must refrain from any further acts in violation of any of the referenced District Court orders.
