The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has affirmed a lower court's decision to award attorney fees to KLB Realty, LLC, in its case against The Bourne Law Office, PLLC. This ruling, filed on September 17, 2026, comes after a protracted legal battle regarding the premises occupied by Bourne as its law office. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the definition of a 'prevailing party' in civil litigation and the circumstances under which attorney fees can be awarded.
The dispute began when KLB Realty, the landlord, initiated a forcible entry and detainer action against Bourne, seeking restitution of the premises. The Superior Court ruled in favor of KLB, granting them immediate restitution of the premises on August 23, 2024. Bourne subsequently appealed this decision, leading to a series of legal motions and filings that culminated in the recent ruling by the Supreme Court.
In the initial stages, Bourne sought a stay of execution on the Superior Court's decision, arguing that the appeal would be mooted if the premises were returned to KLB. However, the magistrate judge denied this request, leading Bourne to file multiple motions, including a petition for a writ of prohibition, which the Supreme Court also denied. Eventually, Bourne moved to dismiss its appeal, which KLB did not oppose, prompting the Superior Court to dismiss the review.
Following the dismissal, KLB filed for attorney fees incurred during the appeal process, claiming a total of $4,875. The Superior Court granted this request on January 21, 2025, leading Bourne to file an appeal against the fee award. The case then reached the Supreme Court, where the justices reviewed the lower court's decision.
The Supreme Court, led by Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret, ruled that KLB was indeed the prevailing party in the case. The court stated, "KLB achieved at least some of the benefits it sought in the litigation—indeed, KLB achieved the only benefit it sought in initiating the FED action." This ruling is crucial as it establishes a broader interpretation of what constitutes a prevailing party in civil litigation, allowing for the recovery of attorney fees even when a party does not achieve a final judgment in their favor.
The court also addressed Bourne's argument that KLB could not claim prevailing party status because Bourne dismissed its appeal before a decision was rendered on the merits. The court clarified that the term 'prevailing party' should be interpreted liberally, emphasizing that KLB's success in the underlying forcible entry and detainer action qualified them for the fee award.
Moreover, the court noted that the Superior Court's award of fees was limited to the defense of the appeal and did not include fees related to the underlying forcible entry and detainer action, which are generally not recoverable under Virgin Islands law. The court stated, "the Superior Court’s grant of fees did not encompass work Bourne performed in litigating the underlying FED action, and was thus proper." This distinction is important for future cases involving landlord-tenant disputes and the recovery of attorney fees.
The ruling has implications for both parties involved and for future litigants in the Virgin Islands. It reinforces the idea that parties can recover attorney fees if they achieve some benefit in the litigation, even if the case does not conclude with a formal judgment in their favor. This could encourage landlords and other parties in similar disputes to pursue legal action, knowing they may be able to recover their legal costs.
Looking ahead, Bourne has the option to appeal this decision further, but details on any potential related cases or future actions were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how attorney fees are handled in similar legal contexts moving forward.