Epstein Secrets

TON OPINION MEMORANDUM OPINION (Airy 2010) This matter came on for a trial on April 8, 2014, before the Honorable Debra S. Watlington, Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for the determination of the parties' personal property and the marital homestead. Petitioner/Husband Mr. Julito A. Francis appeared with counsel A

2d 829, 831 (1999). Once these distinctions have been made, the trial judge has broad equitable powers in disposing of marital property. Fuentes, 38 V.I. at 35, 1997 WL 889532, at *5. [5] [HN4]Although not specifically defined, marital property ['23] has been construed to encompass any property whic

rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First, it argued that the

ON OPINION MEMORANDUM OPNON 1.1tey 14.2014) This matter came on for a trial on April 8, 2014, before the Honorable Debra S. Watlington, Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for the determination of the parties' personal property and the marital homestead. Petitioner/Husband Mr. Julito A. Francis appeared with counsel A

2d 829, 831 (1999). Once these distinctions have been made, the trial judge has broad equitable powers in disposing of marital property. Fuentes, 38 V.I. at 35, 1997 WL 889532, at '5. [5] IHN41Although not specifically defined, marital property [e23] has been construed to encompass any property whic

June 6, 2012, Decided June 6, 2012, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed by Prosser v. Carroll (In re Prosser), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15853 (3d Cir. V.I., Aug. 1, 2013) For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059974 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022798 EFTA_00I705 IS EFTA01297

Fancelli moves the Court to dismiss the action because, it asserts, the Virgin Islands is an improper venue.'9 It is Fancelli's burden to prove that the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, is an improper venue.50 Under Virgin Islands law, courts (Def. is Mot. to Dismiss 13.) FED. R. CTV. P. I 9(a

V.I.C. § 4903(a)(1). Berrran4 2010 WI, 2507305, at '9 (citing Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 332 (3d Cir. 009)). Aftrnbook 47 V.I. at 283; see also Ifendrickson v. Reg 0 Co., 17 V.L 457, 462 (D.V.I. 1980). Afruccife, 566 F.3d at 332 ("Mhe Metcalfe: assert that Renaissance exchan

The Executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, filed a Petition for Probate and 1 EFTA00074744 Letters Testamentary with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on August 15, 2019. Id. 8. The Petition for Probate included Mr. Epstein's Last Will and 'Testament.' Id. Two days before his death, Mr. Epstein a

te' then '[1]ittle doubt remains that such an intangible interest is property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.— In re the Estate of Small, 57 V.I. at 423 (quoting Tulsa Profl Collection Serv.. Inc•. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 485, 108 S. Ct. 1340, 1345 (1988)). III. ANALYSIS Pursuant to Rule 24