ST. CROIX — Just one week after being elected to the 37th Legislature of the Virgin Islands in the November 3 general election, Senator-elect Jose “Besse” Gonzalez appeared in Superior Court Tuesday on St. Croix, where a magistrate judge ruled against him in a civil dispute involving the sale of a vehicle he acknowledged was not registered in his name.
Tuesday’s hearing was a continuation of proceedings that began on October 27, when both Gonzalez and Latisha Rawlins appeared before Magistrate Judge Christopher Timmons. According to an October 28 court order, a power outage interrupted Rawlins’ testimony and caused the courtroom’s recording system to fail, forcing the court to postpone the hearing.
The case centered on a vehicle transaction between Gonzalez and Rawlins, who alleged that she entered into an agreement to purchase a car from Gonzalez but ultimately discovered that he was not its legal owner and could not provide the documentation necessary to transfer ownership.
During the proceedings, Gonzalez acknowledged that the vehicle belonged to another individual, identified as Nigel Abdallah. However, he maintained that he had acted in good faith and was simply trying to help Rawlins obtain transportation.
“I didn’t try to connive her,” Gonzalez told Timmons. “I just wanted to help her have a vehicle.”
Rawlins describes her first vehicle purchase:
Rawlins testified about what she described as her first attempt to purchase a vehicle, an experience she said left, “three people eating off my head.”
According to her testimony, she initially rented a blue 2013 Hyundai Sonata from Gonzalez before agreeing to purchase the vehicle in 2025.
Gonzalez described providing rental vehicles to individuals who were unable to obtain traditional car rentals because they did not have credit cards. He testified that his rental rate was approximately $50 per day. WTJX later confirmed with the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs that Gonzalez did not have a business license to rent vehicles.
Rawlins eventually expressed interest in purchasing a vehicle, leading to an arrangement in which Gonzalez agreed to sell her the Hyundai.
However, Rawlins testified that when she received the vehicle, she discovered damage to its front end that she maintained had not been present when she initially agreed to purchase it.
According to Rawlins, Gonzalez explained that another individual to whom he had rented the vehicle had been involved in an accident while driving it. Gonzalez subsequently offered to deduct $500 from the original agreed-upon purchase price of $6,500 to account for the damage.
Rawlins told Timmons she continued with the purchase because she “needed a car because it’s just me and my daughter.”
Rawlins stated that when Gonzalez brought the vehicle to her workplace, it had “a loud muffler noise.” Gonzalez told her he would take it to a muffler shop in the Five Corners area.
According to Rawlins, the noise was no longer present when he returned the vehicle the following day.
Rawlins said she made an initial payment of $2,500 to Gonzalez by money order. She acknowledged that she had not thoroughly reviewed the vehicle’s registration documents and later learned that the vehicle was registered to Abdallah.
Questions arise over vehicle ownership:
A central issue during Tuesday’s hearing was whether Gonzalez had the legal authority to sell the vehicle.
Timmons began his questioning by asking Gonzalez, “Did you sell this car to Miss Rawlins?” Gonzalez responded, “How can I answer that?” When Timmons repeated the question, Gonzalez replied, “Do you want me to answer that question before I tell you the story?”
Gonzalez testified that his agreement with Rawlins was a “rent-to-own” arrangement.
Timmons asked Gonzalez directly, “What legal authority did you have to sell the car?”
Gonzalez initially avoided answering the question.
The judge also questioned Gonzalez about whether he had been acting as an authorized agent for Abdallah or for a woman previously associated with the vehicle. Gonzalez denied having authorization from either individual.
Timmons then challenged the legal basis for the transaction, telling Gonzalez he cannot sell a vehicle he does not own. He further questioned Gonzalez’s explanation that he had arranged a rent-to-own agreement with Rawlins.
“If you don’t own the vehicle, you can’t do a rent-to-own,” Timmons said. “That’s fraud. What is your defense?”
Gonzalez maintained that he had just been trying to help Rawlins obtain transportation and was not attempting to profit from the transaction.
“My niceness got me in this situation,” he said.
Gonzalez testified that the vehicle was being paid for by his daughter, who he said could no longer afford the payments. He said he had paid $3,000 to a third party under an agreement to pay the remaining $3,500. Under his arrangement with Rawlins, she would assume responsibility for the remaining payments.
But the question surrounding the vehicle’s registration and title remained central to the dispute, particularly because Rawlins maintained that she had entered into the agreement expecting to become its legal owner once the required payments to Gonzalez were completed.
Third party demands vehicle’s return:
The dispute became more complicated when another woman, who claimed an ownership interest in the vehicle, contacted Rawlins and demanded that it be returned.
Rawlins testified that she eventually learned the woman was seeking to recover the vehicle because Gonzalez had allegedly failed to complete his financial obligations.
The woman reportedly informed Rawlins that Gonzalez was not the vehicle’s owner and that Rawlins should seek reimbursement directly from him.
According to Rawlins’ testimony, the woman threatened to contact police if the vehicle was not returned.
Rawlins subsequently filed a police report concerning the encounter.
“To this day, I don’t even know who she is,” Rawlins stated.
Rawlins said Gonzalez told her she was not getting any money back.
Gonzalez maintained that he had been attempting to facilitate an arrangement that would ultimately allow Rawlins to acquire the vehicle.
Timmons again pressed Gonzalez on his legal authority over the vehicle.
Gonzalez questioned the relevance of the inquiry, responding, “What does that have to do with this case?”
“It has everything to do with this case,” Timmons responded. “What’s your legal right?”
“I have no legal right to the vehicle,” Gonzalez responded.
He stated his intention was that when Rawlins paid him for the vehicle, the unidentified third party would then have been paid.
“If she had made the payments, none of this would have happened,” Gonzalez stated.
When Timmons asked who the unidentified third party was, Gonzalez responded, “that’s irrelevant to the situation.”
“No one even knows the name of the third party,” Timmons said.
Gonzalez said, “Your honor, why am I being sued … the only thing we both didn’t know was that Abdallah owned the vehicle.”
“And yet you can’t tell the court who the third party is,” Timmons replied.
Payments, repairs and insurance proceeds disputed:
The court also reviewed financial arrangements between Gonzalez and Rawlins.
According to Rawlins’ testimony, Gonzalez discussed using proceeds from a potential insurance claim associated with the earlier accident to help satisfy the outstanding purchase amount. She introduced photos of messages referencing that proposed arrangement.
Gonzalez maintained that Rawlins failed to complete the agreed payments and questioned why she should be entitled to recover money after possessing and driving the vehicle for approximately four months.
“I did everything fair with her … but you already made your judgment your honor,” Gonzalez said, even though Timmons had not yet ruled.
“Now she’s here tainting my name and demonizing me in order to get a judgment,” Gonzalez continued.
Gonzalez argued that Rawlins had received the benefit of using the vehicle despite not completing the purchase.
“She wasn’t paying so it disrupted the whole process,” he said.
During the hearing, questions were raised about discrepancies in the vehicle identification number appearing on various documents, including the Hyundai’s bill of sale prepared for the transaction between Gonzalez and Rawlins. Gonzalez testified that he had no knowledge of any changes to the VIN, explaining that he was not in possession of the vehicle.
Timmons also questioned whether Gonzalez had a title or registration document bearing the vehicle’s VIN. Gonzalez responded, “You know I don’t … I’ve said my piece.”
Rawlins, however, maintained that she entered into the agreement with the expectation of receiving legal ownership and that Gonzalez could not deliver the title necessary to complete the transaction.
Timmons then questioned how Rawlins would have obtained the vehicle’s title even if she had completed all the payments, asking, “Let’s say she paid in full … how was she ever going to get the title?”
The court also heard testimony about the preparation of a bill of sale, which Gonzalez maintained accurately reflected the agreement between the parties.
Timmons challenged that assertion, arguing, “Even if she had paid $6,500, she wouldn’t have had the title because you are not the owner.”
Questions surrounding the vehicle’s current possession:
The hearing also addressed who currently was in possession of the Hyundai.
According to Rawlins, the vehicle was returned to Abdallah, the individual identified as its registered owner.
Rawlins testified that Abdallah saw the vehicle at her house and contacted her landlord, who in turn got the two in touch with one another.
A notarized letter signed by Abdallah and obtained by WTJX, dated March 12, states that he took possession of the vehicle from Rawlins.
Gonzalez maintains he was trying to help:
Throughout the hearing, Gonzalez disputed the suggestion that he had intentionally misled Rawlins. He maintained that he had entered the arrangement to help her obtain transportation and had not anticipated the legal complications that followed. He continued to question whether Rawlins’ use of the vehicle for several months should be considered when determining whether she was entitled to recover the money she had paid.
“She drove it four months for free,” he said.
The court, however, focused on the legal authority necessary to sell the vehicle.
“You can’t even get over the first bridge … because it was not yours,” Timmons stated.
Judge rules in favor of Rawlins:
Following testimony and the presentation of evidence, Timmons entered judgment in favor of Rawlins in the amount of $2,711.16. She claimed expenses included approximately $2,711.16 in out-of-pocket costs, with testimony referencing the initial vehicle payment, court costs, and an outstanding amount associated with repairs to the bumper.
Gonzalez was advised that he had 14 days to appeal the decision and 10 days to pay the cashier. He told Timmons he could not make the payment. Timmons responded that Rawlins could then file a claim with the court, which could result in Gonzalez’s assets being evaluated or seized to satisfy the judgment.