From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cattle Investors Mgmnt. Corp. v. Poutre

Supreme Court of Vermont
Oct 9, 1987
535 A.2d 787 (Vt. 1987)

Opinion

No. 84-555

Opinion Filed October 9, 1987

Appeal and Error — Timeliness of Appeal — Entry of Judgment

Pursuant to V.R.A.P. 4 and 12 V.S.A. § 2383, appeal must be taken from entry of judgment within 30 days; entry of judgment, which triggers running of appeal period, occurs on date order is entered in civil docket. V.R.A.P. 4. Since entry of judgment in foreclosure proceedings does not occur after redemption period, and since defendants did not take appeal within 30 days of entry of judgment, defendants were properly denied leave to appeal.

Appeal by defendants from trial court's denial of permission to appeal judgment of foreclosure of mortgage deed and refusal to allow defendants to exercise power of sale. Orleans Superior Court, Wolchik, J., presiding. Affirmed.

M. Jerome Diamond and Stephen C. Smith of Diamond Associates, P.C., Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory P. Howe, Newport, for Defendants-Appellants.

Present: Allen, C.J., Peck, J., and Barney, C.J. (Ret.), Keyser, J. (Ret.) and Costello, D.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned


This action involves the foreclosure of a mortgage deed. On appeal, defendants claim the trial court erred in denying permission to appeal the judgment of foreclosure and in refusing to allow the defendants to exercise a power of sale. We affirm.

At oral argument, defendants withdrew a third claim of error that the court improperly denied a request for a trial by jury.

Plaintiff, Cattle Investors Management Corp., was the holder of a note and mortgage deed executed by defendants, Phillip M. Poutre and Sandra Poutre, in March 1980. Both the note and the mortgage were given as security for obligations arising out of a series of contracts involving the placement of cattle on defendants' farm. In 1981, plaintiff instituted foreclosure proceedings and after a nonjury trial in Orleans Superior Court, judgment was entered for the plaintiff on April 9, 1984. Pursuant to the foreclosure decree, defendants' redemption period ran until November 5, 1984.

On April 27, 1984, defendants filed, pro se, a notice of appeal with this Court. We dismissed on August 8, 1984, for lack of jurisdiction because defendants had not sought leave to appeal from the trial court, pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4601.

No further action was taken until the redemption period expired, and plaintiff obtained a certificate of nonredemption and a writ of possession. On November 7, 1984, defendants requested leave of the court to appeal the foreclosure decree. The court denied the request as untimely since permission to appeal was not sought within thirty days of the date of judgment or, at the very latest, of the date of this Court's dismissal of defendant's improper appeal.

In its challenge to the court's denial of permission, defendants concede that appeal must be taken from an entry of judgment within thirty days, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 4; 12 V.S.A. § 2383. However, defendants argue that the judgment did not become "absolute" until the redemption period ran on November 5, 1984 and, thus, their motion for permission to appeal was timely. Defendants' position is without either support or reason. Entry of judgment, which triggers the running of the appeal period, occurs on the date the order is entered in the civil docket. V.R.A.P. 4. Here, the order was entered in the docket on April 9, 1984. Defendants cite no authority to support the position that entry of judgment in foreclosure proceedings occurs after the redemption period, and such a rule would upset the statutory time frame established for foreclosures. Having sought permission several months after entry of judgment, defendants were properly denied leave to appeal.

Defendants' initial procedurally defective appeal to this Court did not toll the running of the appeal period. Even if it had, appeal from the foreclosure decree was still inexcusably late.

As a result of the untimely appeal, defendants are barred from raising other issues relating to the merits of the foreclosure action. Stowe Center, Inc. v. Burlington Savings Bank, 141 Vt. 634, 636-37, 451 A.2d 1114, 1115 (1982).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Cattle Investors Mgmnt. Corp. v. Poutre

Supreme Court of Vermont
Oct 9, 1987
535 A.2d 787 (Vt. 1987)
Case details for

Cattle Investors Mgmnt. Corp. v. Poutre

Case Details

Full title:Cattle Investors Management Corp. v. Phillip and Sandra Poutre; Norbert…

Court:Supreme Court of Vermont

Date published: Oct 9, 1987

Citations

535 A.2d 787 (Vt. 1987)
535 A.2d 787

Citing Cases

Vermont National Bank v. Clark

In that case defendants did not seek or obtain permission to appeal under § 4601, and that procedural failure…

Mortgage Lenders Network, USA v. Sensenich

¶ 7. Moreover, we reject the trustee's apparent position that there was no final judgment in this case…