Skip to Content
Judiciary of the US Virgin Islands
Supreme Court
Superior Court
Supreme Court
of the
Virgin Islands
A+
A-
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Members of Discipline Boards
Attorney Discipline
Judicial Discipline
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Attorney Registration
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
November 2024 OA Calendar
Amended November 2024 OA Calendar
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Members of Discipline Boards
Attorney Discipline
Judicial Discipline
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Attorney Registration
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
November 2024 OA Calendar
Amended November 2024 OA Calendar
MENU
Supreme Court of the US Virgin Islands
»
Court Opinions
»
Published Opinions
»
2019 Published Opinions
»
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2016-0016
A+
A-
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2016-0016
Sub Menu
Skip Sidebar Navigation
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2016-0016
S. Ct. Crim. No. 2017-0043
Last item for navigation
Case Caption:
Marlene Wilkinson v. Sinclair Wilkinson
Case Number:
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2016-0016
Date:
03/25/2019
Author:
Cabret, Maria M.
Citation:
2019 VI 9
Summary:
In an appeal from a Superior Court order denying a former wife’s motion to vacate a portion of a mediated settlement agreement, contending that her former husband fraudulently misrepresented the amount of money owed under a contract for construction of the marital home, it is concluded that §§ 162 and 164 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts represent the soundest rules of decision for the Virgin Islands. To prevail on a claim to rescind a contract based upon fraud in the inducement, a party must show that: (1) there was a misrepresentation, (2) the misrepresentation was fraudulent or material, (3) the misrepresentation induced the recipient to enter the contract, and (4) that the recipient's reliance on the misrepresentation was reasonable. A misrepresentation is fraudulent where the maker intends his assertion to induce a party to manifest assent and the maker (a) knows or believes that the assertion is not in accord with the facts, or (b) does not have the confidence that he states or implies in the truth of the assertion, or (c) knows that he does not have the basis that he states or implies for the assertion. A misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest his assent, or if the maker knows that it would be likely to induce the recipient to do so. Claims for rescission of contracts based upon fraudulent misrepresentation require proof by clear and convincing evidence. Because the Superior Court failed to consider each piece of evidence presented in support of the former wife’s claim, this matter is remanded for the court to make specific findings of fact with respect to each of the five items of evidence presented, and to explain its determinations concerning the credibility and weight of that evidence. After making its findings of fact, the Superior Court shall apply the law of fraudulent inducement set forth in this opinion to determine whether, considering all the evidence together, the former wife has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the former husband misrepresented the amount of money owed for the construction and, if so, whether she has satisfied the remaining elements of her claim for rescission based upon fraud in the inducement.
Attachment:
Open Document or Opinion