IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN GREAT St JIM, LLC Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN KJAER in personam, & PARCEL 11, ESTATE NAZARETH, ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS in rem, Defendants. Civil No. ST-I8-CV-293 ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, PRIVATE NUISANCE, DIMINUTION OF VALUE, UNJUST ENRICHMENT & ACCOUNTING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER COMES NOW, Defendants Christian Kjaer ("Kjaer") in personam and Parcel II, Estate Nazareth, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands in rem ("Parcel 11") (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, Gaylin Vogel, appearing and for its Answer and Affirmative Defenses without prejudice to its pending Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint states in response to Plaintiffs numbered paragraphs as follows: I. Defendants do not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph I, and leaves Plaintiff Great St. Jim, LLC ("Plaintiff') to its proof. 2. Admit. 3. Admit. 4. Denied. 5. Admit. 6. Defendants do not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 6, and leaves Plaintiff to its proof. To the extent an answer is required the allegations are denied. EFTA00798032 Great Si. Jim, LLC. v. Kjaen et al. Answer to the First Amended Complaint Page 2 7. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 8. Denied, the 1965 Deed does not apply for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 9. Denied, the 1965 Deed does not apply for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 10. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. II. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 12. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 13. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings COUNT I: Enforcement of restrictive covenant and/or express or implied easement against Kjaer and Parcel I 1 14. Defendant repeats and realleges the foregoing answers to the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 15. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 16. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. EFTA00798033 Great Si fun, LLC t 1Qaer, et al. Answer to the First Amended Complaint Page 3 17. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 18. Denied, there is no implied casement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 19. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 20. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 21. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 22. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 23. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. COUNT H: Private Nuisance against Kjaer and Parcel 11 24. Defendant repeats and realleges the foregoing answers to the First Amended Complaint as if filly set forth herein EFTA00798034 Great St. Jim, LLC. r. Kjaer. et al. Answer to the First Amended Complaint Page 4 25. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 26. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 27. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 28. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied casement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 29. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. COUNT III: Action for declaratory judgment against Kjaer and Parcel 11 30. Defendant repeats and realleges the foregoing answers to the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 31. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. EFTA00798035 Great St. Jim. LLC, v. Kjaer, et at Answer to the First Amended Complaint Page 5 32. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 33. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. COUNT IV: Diminution of value of Plaintiff's property against Kjaer and Parcel 11 34. Defendant repeats and rcalleges the foregoing answers to the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 35. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 36. Denied. 37. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 38. Denied. COUNT V: Unjust enrichment and action for accounting against Kjaer 39. Defendant repeats and realleges the foregoing answers to the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 40. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. EFTA00798036 Great St Jim. LLC, v. Kjaer, et at Answer to die First Amended Complaint Page 6 41. Denied. 42. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 43. Denied, there is no restrictive covenant or implied easement for the reasons stated in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 44. Denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief has been granted. 2. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 3. Plaintiff's claims are barred under the statute of frauds. 4. This court does not have in rem jurisdiction over Parcel 11. 5. Plaintiff has unclean hands. 6. Plaintiff has failed to join a necessary party. 7. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages. 8. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges damages are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendants have no responsibility or control. 9. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit under the counts alleged in the First Amended Complaint. 10. Plaintiff's claims are barred under the doctrine of latches. I. Defendants reserve the right to add additional affirmative defenses EFTA00798037 Great St. Jam LLC v. 1Qaer es at. Answer to the First Amended Complaint Page 7 ; Dated: OctoberL.. ..) , 2018 Kevin F. D'Amour, P.C. ‘t-VcI gel VI Bar 1077 P.O. Box 10829 St. Thomas, VI 00801 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of October, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the Answer to the First Amended Complaint to be sent to the following via US Mail, postage prepaid. Christopher Allen Kroblin, Esq. Marjorie Whalen, Esq. Kellerhals Ferguson Kroblin PLLC Royal Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101 St. Thomas, VI 00802 EFTA00798038