Full Opinion

For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS EGBERT GEORGE ) S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 ) Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 164/2024 (STT) Appellant/Plaintiff, ) ) v ) ) HENRY ASHTIAN, and ) ELROY ASHTIAN, SR., ) ) Appellees/Defendants ) On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of St. Thomas Superior Court Judge: Hon. Carol Thomas-Jacobs Considered: July 15, 2026 Filed: September 16, 2026 Cite as: 2026 VI 18 BEFORE IVE A. SWAN, Associate Justice; HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS, Associate Justice; and DENISE M. FRANCOIS, Associate Justice APPEARANCES Egbert George St. Thomas, U.S.V.I Pro se Henry Ashtian,! Elroy Ashtian, Sr St. Thomas, U.S.V.I Pro se OPINION FRANCOIS, Associate Justice. q 1 Appellant Egbert George (“George”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order granting the motion to dismiss filed by the Appellees, Henry Ashtian and Elroy ' The Superior Court referred to Henry Ashtian as both “Henry Ashtian” and “Henry Ashtian, Sr.” This Court will refer to him as Henry Ashtian for present purposes to be consistent with the majority of prior references. Elroy Ashtian, Sr. is Henry Ashtian’s son George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 2 of 13 Ashtian, Sr. (together, the “Ashtians”), who also proceed pro se. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as untimely I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 42 | OnApril 1, 2024, George filed his complaint against the Ashtians. The Complaint alleges (1) trespass, (2) action for injunctive relief, (3) declaratory judgment, (4) damages for slander of title, (5) quiet title, and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the complaint, George claims that his family has owned Parcel No. 6L, 6H, and 6AE* Hansen Bay, East End Quarter, St John, V.I., since the 1800s, but that sometime prior to November 29, 2023, the Ashtians intentionally entered onto 6L Hansen Bay, East End Quarter, St. John, unlawfully removed trees, vegetation, and layers of dirt and topsoil, and constructed structures and fences on George’s family property a9 On July 8, 2024, the Ashtians filed an answer and counterclaim, claiming that Henry Ashtian owns a 1/3 interest in the properties at issue, including 6L Saltwell Bottom (or 6L Hansen Bay, East End Quarter, St. John, V.I.). The Ashtians’ counterclaim sought to (1) dismiss the complaint with prejudice, (2) award defendant Henry Ashtian the interests of the Ellen Smith heir and Charlotte George for the Ashtians’ 43 years of work, legal fees, property taxes paid, etc., and (3) award the Ashtians damages for defamation and further relief as the court deemed just and equitable "4 On July 15, 2024, George filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.’ In it, George claimed that he is a descendant of Ellen Smith and that there is no evidence to suggest that the 2 The parties refer to this parcel as both “6AE” and “6ae.” This Court will refer to the parcel as “6AE” which is the legal description used in the April 3, 2001 adjudication conveying an interest therein to Henry Ashtian. See infra § 7 * The Ashtians did not file a separate motion to dismiss prior to George’s opposition George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 3 of 13 Ashtians or their family members have ever legally resided on, or owned, any of the properties in question qs On November 4, 2024, George filed a motion for emergency injunction, seeking an injunction against the Ashtians “to immediately cease and desist any and all construction activities on Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family property, located at 6L Hansen Bay, East End Quarter, St. John, Virgin Islands.” In this motion, George claimed that the Ashtians’ continued construction activity was causing immediate and irreparable injury to George and his family. Notably, in Exhibit 1 submitted with this motion, George attached a document that he claims is a deed from 1913 that conveyed ownership of 6L Saltwell Bottom, East End Quarter, to John Ashton’s heirs, Ellen Smith’s heirs, and Charlotte George.* George further claimed that his family, as the heirs of Ellen Smith, are the rightful owners of 6L Saltwell Bottom (or 6L Hansen Bay) and that the Ashtians have no legitimate claim to the property or right to be on the property 46 On March 19, 2025, the Superior Court held a hearing and both parties appeared.° Both parties presented their arguments,° and the Superior Court denied George’s motion for emergency injunction. In doing so, the Superior Court stated that this dispute concerning the land has been ongoing for over 40 years and that no emergency existed. The Superior Court highlighted how many individuals might own 6L Hansen Bay, and that George had not sufficiently shown that he owned all (or part) of 6L Hansen Bay. For instance, the Superior Court acknowledged that the * George resubmitted this document on March 17, 2025, in Exhibit 21 * The Superior Court initially scheduled a status conference for December 10, 2024, but Henry Ashtian and Elroy Ashtian, Sr. did not appear. On January 23, 2025, the Superior Court rescheduled the status conference for March 19 2025. The transcript details that a motions hearing occurred on March 19, 2025 ®° Neither party was sworn in under oath during this hearing George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 4 of 13 Ashtians provided a 2001 adjudication from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands’ that determined that Henry Ashtian owns a 1/3 interest in 6L, 6H, and 6AE Hansen Bay, but that George had not provided a document showing that a probate was done pertaining to his claims of ownership, such as with Ellen Smith’s estate. The Superior Court instructed the parties to properly file the documents they possessed that demonstrate their ownership of the properties at issue q7 On March 25, 2025, the Ashtians filed a motion to dismiss, which included an adjudication for a case entitled, In the Matter of the Estate of: Peter Ashtian, and docketed as Probate No 96/1994. The April 3, 2001 adjudication vested in Henry Ashtian, Peter Ashtian’s son and his sole heir-at-law, a 1/3 interest in 6, Hansen Bay, 6H Hansen Bay, and 6AE Hansen Bay, East End Quarter, St. John, V.I.? {8 On May 5, 2025, the Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, stating that “[a]lthough George may very well be an heir of Ellen Smith, with the heirs collectively having [a] 1/3 interest in the property, he has not supported his claim of ownership with an adjudication.”'® However, a “court of competent jurisdiction in the Territory has already declared that Henry Ashtian has a 1/3 interest in 6L Hansen Bay and therefore, is part-owner of the property.” The Superior Court 7 The Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands issued this adjudication. “Prior to 2004, the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands had been known as the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. In 2004, the Legislature redesignated the Territorial Court as the Superior Court. 2004 V.I. Sess. Laws 179 (Act No. 6687, § 1(b)). To avoid confusion, we refer to the former Territorial Court by its current name.” Antilles Sch., Inc. v. Lembach, 64 V.1. 400, 430 n.15 (V.I. 2016) 8 For this motion, the Ashtians solely submitted the previous adjudication without elaborating upon the document or expressly making an argument as to why dismissal was appropriate. The submitted adjudication was missing the third page ° The adjudication also lists an undetermined interest in Parcel] No. 9G Newfound Bay, East End Quarter, St. John, Vi '© Notably, George did not file a separate, written opposition to this specific March 25, 2025 motion to dismiss before the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 5 of 13 concluded that “George has failed to state a claim for trespass, eviction, and slander of title against Henry Ashtian and his son, Elroy Ashtian, Sr.” q9 On May 19, 2025, George filed a motion for reconsideration of the May 5, 2025 order of dismissal pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 6-4. George’s motion for reconsideration was based upon several grounds, including: procedural due process violations, newly discovered facts, and factual misrepresentations by the Ashtians. For instance, George claimed that the Ashtians did not share certain documents with him and that he did not have an opportunity to inspect or rebut the documents, and that the matter should have proceeded to discovery. On June 2, 2025, the Ashtians filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration, claiming that Henry Ashtian is the only person that went through probate over 30 years ago, that George’s action is in bad faith, and that George is misusing the civil court process.'' The Superior Court never ruled upon George’s motion for reconsideration 410 Nearly six months later, on November 5, 2025, George filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), Rule 60(b)(3), and Rule 60(b)(6) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure.'? The Superior Court did not address this motion 411 On November 25, 2025, George filed a supplemental memorandum of law in which he specifically addressed what he viewed as the defendants’ shifting explanations and attempt to avoid responsibility.'? George claimed that he filed this supplemental memorandum “to address the credibility issues arising from Defendants’ contradictory statements regarding their 11On June 18, 2025, George filed a reply '2 In November 2025, the Ashtians filed an opposition and George filed a reply '3 In December 2025, the Ashtians filed an opposition and George filed a reply George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ, No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 6 of 13 genealogical research and their claimed ownership rights to Parcels 6L, 6H, and 6ae Hansen Bay, St. John, Virgin Islands.” Additionally, George stated that the issues raised in the action fall outside the limited jurisdiction of the Probate Division. According to George, “[T]he Probate Court cannot determine ownership of real property, adjudicate fraud, or resolve conflicting genealogical claims regarding property not in an active estate. There is no open probate estate concerning the disputed parcels, making referral legally improper.” The Superior Court appears to have taken no action in response to George’s supplemental memorandum {12 On February 18, 2026, George filed his notice of appeal with this Court,'* appealing the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order, in which George stated that “[t]his appeal is timely pursuant to V.LR. App. P. 4(a) and 15 V.ILC. § 4 II. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction 413 This Court has appellate jurisdiction over “all appeals from the decisions of the courts of the Virgin Islands established by local law[.]” 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(d). Title 4, section 32(a) of the Virgin Islands Code vests this Court with jurisdiction over “all appeals arising from final judgments, final decrees or final orders of the Superior Court, or as otherwise provided by law.” “A final decision, judgment, decree, or order is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing else for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Clark v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 2025 VI 15, J 13 (citing Henneman-Todman v. O'Bryan-Johnson, Tr., Elsa D. O'Bryan Revocable Tr., 2025 VI 10, § 8) '4 On February 20, 2026, this Court stated that it received the notice of appeal on February 18, 2026 George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 7 of 13 914 The May 5, 2025 order granting the Ashtians’ motion to dismiss constitutes a final order because it disposes of all claims presented to the Superior Court for adjudication, conferring this Court with jurisdiction over this appeal. Montgomery v. Virgin Grand Villas St. John Owners' Ass'n, 71 V1. 1119, 1125 (V.1. 2019) (citing Percival v. People, 62 V.1. 477, 483 (V.I. 2015)). The Ashtians’ July 8, 2024 filing included a counterclaim, see supra | 3. However, the May 5, 2025 order dismissed the matter in its entirety, disposing of all claims and counterclaims then pending; neither party contends that any claim remains before the Superior Court. The order therefore ended the litigation on the merits and is final. Cf Simpson y. Bd. of Dirs. of Sapphire Bay Condos. W., 62 VI. 728, 731 (V.I. 2015) (the final order is the one resolving all pending claims and counterclaims) B. Untimeliness of George’s Notice of Appeal i. The impact of the post-order motions on the deadline to file the notice of appeal 415 Rule 5(a)(1) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure states that “[i]n a civil case [an appellant's] notice of appeal ... shall be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from{.]” V.I. R. App. P. 5(a)(1) Ordinarily, George would have been required to file the notice of appeal in June 2025. But George filed his notice of appeal on February 18, 2026, which is over nine months after the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order. The Ashtians expressly highlight this issue and ask this Court to deny ““Appellant’s appeal as untimely[.]” 416 However, George argues that he filed his motion for reconsideration on May 19, 2025, and a Rule 60(b) motion on November 5, 2025, and that Rule 5(a)(4) of the Virgin Island Rules of Appellate Procedure requires “the appellate deadline to be evaluated in light of qualifying post judgment motions and their disposition.” In essence, George argues that his notice of appeal is not George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 8 of 13 untimely because the several motions he filed with the Superior Court after the May 5, 2025 order extended the deadline under Rule 5(a)(4).'° He also claims that the “Supreme Court’s docketing of the appeal and issuance of briefing-related orders” show that the Ashtians’ timeliness argument is flawed. But neither provision that George invokes bears on timeliness: Rule 4 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the contents and filing of a notice of appeal, not the time for filing it, and 15 V.I.C. § 4 addresses the capacity to take real property by devise Contrary to George’s argument, that this Court docketed the appeal and issued briefing orders, does not mean that the timeliness question was therefore adjudicated or forfeited, and the Court resolves a timeliness issue on the merits, such as when the appellees have raised it 417 Rule 5(a)(4) states that If any party timely files in the Superior Court a motion for judgment as a matter of law; to amend findings or make additional findings; for a new trial; to alter or amend the judgment or order; or (if filed within 28 days) for relief from the judgment or order, the time for filing the notice of appeal for all parties is extended until 30 days after entry of an order disposing of the last such motion; provided, however, that the failure to dispose of any motion by order entered upon the record within 120 days after the date the motion was filed shall constitute a denial of the motion for purposes of appeal V.I. R. App. P. 5(a)(4). Rule 5 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure is a non jurisdictional claims-processing rule that does not foreclose this Court from reviewing an otherwise untimely appeal in the exercise of its discretion. Companion Assurance Co. v. Smith, 66 V.I. 562, 569 (V.I. 2017) (citing Peters v. People, 60 V.1. 479, 484 (V.I. 2014) (citations omitted) (“For these reasons, appellate courts will relax the time to appeal only in rare cases, such as where a trial court erroneously informs a party that a post judgment motion will toll the time to appeal '5 The motion for reconsideration bears the Clerk’s FILED stamp of May 19, 2025; it was entered on the docket on May21, 2025. A paper is filed upon its delivery to the Clerk. V.I. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2) George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 9 of 13 or where deciding the late appeal on the merits will promote judicial economy.”)). “This Court adopted Rule 5(a)(4) to ensure, as numerous other courts of last resort have in adopting similar court rules, that court business is expedited and to prevent cases from lying dormant in the trial court due to failures to rule on post-trial motions that stifle the prompt administration of justice.” Id. at 569-70 (citing Paxton Res., L.L.C. v. Brannaman, 95 P.3d 796, 800 (Wyo. 2004)). But this claims-processing rule is subject to waiver if the timeliness issue is not raised. Victor v. Todman, 79 V.I. 381, 405 (V.I. 2024) 418 Furthermore, “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” V.I. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Ifa party files a Rule 60(b) motion over 28 days after a court’s entry of judgment without appealing, such a motion does not toll the time to appeal. Dennie v. Olympic Rent-a-Car, 77 V.I. 625, 632~33 (V.I. 2023) (citing Banister v. Davis 590 U.S. 504, 519-20 (2020) (citations omitted)) 419 Additionally, a motion for reconsideration is not expressly listed under the Virgin Islands Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(4). For instance, a concurrence in Dennie illustrated the dynamic between motions for reconsideration, Rule 59 motions, and Rule 60 motions as they relate to the timing of appeals While [the appellant] asserts that he filed a motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2020 a document which, as the majority correctly notes, is not in the record—a motion for reconsideration is not among the motions listed in Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) that tolls the time to file a notice of appeal. And while this Court has construed documents captioned as motions for reconsideration as motions under Rules 59 or 60 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, see Ruiz v. Jung, § Ct. Civ. No. 2008-0035, 2009 WL 3568182, at *3 (VI. Oct. 19, 2009) (unpublished) (collecting cases), Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) expressly provides that the time to file a notice of appeal is only tolled by a Rule 59 motion if it is timely filed and by a Rule 60 motion if filed within 28 days. Thus, even if [the appellant] actually filed a motion with the Superior Court on January 16, 2020, that motion would not have been sufficient to toll the time to appeal from the November 15, 2019 order George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 10 of 13 Dennie, 77 V.1. at 637-38 (Hodge, C.J., concurring). Similarly, and more recently, this Court stated that Although a motion for reconsideration is not amongst the motions set forth in Rule 5(a)(4) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure [sic] which toll the time to file a notice of appeal, “[w]hen a party files a motion for reconsideration after entry of a final judgment, this Court treats the motion as a motion filed pursuant to [Rule 59]” of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. Reynolds v. Rohn, 70 V.1. 887, 898 (V.I. 2019); see also V.I. R. App. P. 5(a)(4) (providing that motions “to alter or amend the judgment or order; or (if filed within 28 days) for relief from the judgment or order” toll the time to file a notice of appeal) Alexander v. Gov'tof the V.I., 2026 VI 1, 4 13 420 In this case, George filed two motions after the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order: (1) a motion for reconsideration on May 19, 2025 (under Rule 6-4), and (2) a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment on November 5, 2025.'° First, George filed the Rule 60(b) motion in November 2025, which was well over 28 days after the May 5, 2025 Order. Consequently, this Rule 60(b) motion, filed in November, did not toll the time to file the notice of appeal with this Court. Simon vy. Herbert, 69 V.1. 963, 970 (V.I. 2018). Second, George filed his motion for reconsideration approximately 14 days after the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order, so George timely filed this motion, which extended the deadline to file the appeal, but this extension is not infinite. Even if this Court treated this motion for reconsideration as a Rule 59 motion (or even a Rule 60(b) motion), George filed his notice of appeal 125 days after the newly extended deadline For instance, [T]he timely filing of one of the motions identified in Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) only tolls the time for filing an appeal until 30 days after that motion is denied Importantly, Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) expressly provides that such a motion shall be '6 On November 25, 2025, George filed Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum of Law Regarding Defendants’ Shifting Explanations and Attempt to Avoid Responsibility, but this memorandum is not a separate motion George v. Asittian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 11 of 13 deemed denied for purposes of appeal if the Superior Court fails to dispose of it within 120 days of its filing Alicea v. Meyers, 75 V.1. 353, 360 (V.I. 2021) €21 The Superior Court never ruled on George’s motion for reconsideration, filed on May 19, 2025, and under Rule 5(a)(4), 120 days thereafter, that motion was deemed denied for purposes of appeal on September 16, 2025. George would then have had 30 days, commencing with that date, in which to file an appeal, requiring George to file the notice of appeal by Thursday, October 16, 2025. If George demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause under Virgin Islands Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(8), he might have been granted an extension of an additional 30 days, extending the deadline to Monday, November 17, 2025.'? Companion Assurance Co., 66 V.I. at 570. However, George has neither shown nor argued that he had good cause for filing a belated notice of appeal, and even if he had made this showing, he filed the notice of appeal on February 18, 2026, which is 93 days after the latest possible deadline.'* “This Court strictly construes all temporal deadlines.” Dennie, 77 V.I. at 633 (citing V.1. R. App. P. 17). In short, George waited too long to appeal €22 “Nevertheless, because the time to file a notice of appeal is a non-jurisdictional claims processing rule, this Court is not mandated to dismiss all untimely appeals, since the timeliness requirement does not limit the authority of this Court to hear the case.” Alicea, 75 V.I. at 361 (citing Pub. Emps. Rel. Bd. v. United Indus. Workers-Seafarers Int’l Union, 56 V.1. 429, 434 (V.1 2012)). But the Ashtians did not waive this issue of the delayed filing of the notice of appeal. The '7 The 30-day extension period ends Saturday, November 15, 2025, so the period runs to the next business day. See V.I.R. App. P. 16(b) '8 Notably, George did not make a separate motion concerning good cause George v. Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 12 of 13 Ashtians expressly highlight the issue in their brief and ask this Court to dismiss the appeal on this basis. This specific deadline is not a mere suggestion, and George has not given a substantial reason why this Court should relax this requirement. This delay was entirely within George’s control, and while a pro se litigant is “entitled to additional leniency, ‘that leniency is not a license [excusing non-compliance] with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.’” Montgomery, 71 V.1. at 1127-28 (citing Cornelius v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 67 V.1. 806, 823 (V.I. 2017)). In Companion Assurance Co. v. Smith, this Court previously dismissed an appeal as untimely when appellants waited 266 days to file a notice of appeal after the entry of the Superior Court’s judgment Although Companion and Fournier contend that they were awaiting the Superior Court ruling, we decline to permit such blatant disregard of this Court's rules because “relaxing the requirements ... under normal circumstances would severely undermine and weaken the rule's purpose, and diminish society's legitimate interest in the finality of a judgment that has been perfected by the expiration of the time allowed for direct review.” Companion Assurance Co., 66 V.I. at 570-71 (citations omitted) 423 George failed to comply with Virgin Islands Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a) by filing the notice of appeal over nine months after the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order ii. Current status of the post-order motions {24 George filed two motions after the Superior Court’s May 5, 2025 order: (1) a motion for reconsideration on May 19, 2025 (under Rule 6-4), and (2) a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment on November 5, 2025. First, the May 2025 motion for reconsideration was denied by operation of law after the 120-day period. As such, this motion is no longer pending before the Superior Court. Second, George’s Rule 60(b) motion remains pending before the Superior Court for disposition in accordance with Virgin Islands Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(5). Nothing in this opinion addresses the merits of this Rule 60(b) motion George v, Ashtian S. Ct. Civ. No. 2026-0018 Opinion Page 13 of 13 Ill. CONCLUSION 425 George failed to comply with Virgin Islands Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(1) by not timely filing the notice of appeal, even with the benefit of the extension worked by Rule 5(a)(4), and he has not given any substantial reason why this Court should relax this requirement Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as untimely Dated this 16th day of September, 2026 BY THE COURT DENISE M. FRANCOIS Associate Justice ATTEST DALILA E. PATTON, ESQ Clerk of the Cour By eputy Clerk II Dated Seber le 503