mime-version: 1.0 content-type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C5498C.F8784D90" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C5498C.F8784D90 mime-version: 1.0 content-location: file:///C:/235756D3/eo04-453.htm content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; ENTRY ORDER
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-453
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = = FEBRUARY TERM, 2005
M. Cecile Prior &= nbsp; &nb= sp;  = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; } = APPEALED FROM:
v. = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; } = Franklin Superior Court
Norman J. Stanislas &nb= sp;  = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; }
} DOCKET NO= . S522-03 Fc
Trial Judge: Howard = Van BenThuysen
= ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Defendant appeals the superior court’s entry of a judgment that is based on a judgment entered nearly eight years earlier. We affirm.
In January 1996, the superior court entered a judgment order awarding plainti= ff $32,294. Defendant did not a= ppeal the judgment. In November 20= 03, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to renew the judgment before expiratio= n of the applicable statute of limitations.&nb= sp; See 12 V.S.A. § 506 (action for renewal of judgment must be br= ought within eight years after rendition of judgment). Defendant answered the complaint = in February 2004. The following= month, plaintiff sought summary judgment on the complaint. Defendant did not respond to the = motion until August 2004. On August= 12, the superior court granted plaintiff’s motion, ruling that defendant’s response was both untimely and without merit. The court stated that defendant w= as seeking to relitigate the merits of the 1996 judgment, from which he had f= ailed to appeal. The court stated = further that, even if it construed defendant’s response as a motion to vacat= e the 1996 judgment under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(6), the motion was not filed within a reasonable time. Accordingly= , the court entered a new judgment on August 26, 2004.
Defendant appeals that judgment, arguing that he is entitled to dismissal of the ren= ewed judgment because he answered plaintiff’s complaint and yet was never given a hearing, just as he was never given a hearing in the 1996 case aft= er filing an answer to the original complaint. This argument has no merit. Both the 1996 and 2004 judgments = were entered based upon the court granting plaintiff’s motions for summar= y judgment, which demonstrated that there was no genuine issue of material fact in dis= pute, and that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See V.R.C.P. 56(c). Hence, no hearing was necessary.<= /p>
Defendant also argues that (1) the complaint should have been dismissed because plaintiff’s attorney did not reveal that he was actually hired by plaintiff’s daughter, to whom plaintiff had given a power of attorne= y; and (2) the case should have been moved to a different circuit because plaintiff is the niece of a side judge who apparently works in the Franklin Superior Court. Again, we fi= nd no merit to these arguments. De= fendant has failed to demonstrate any wrongdoing on the part of plaintiff’s = attorney, and there is no indication that the side judge named by defendant ever participated in this case.
BY THE COURT:
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justi= ce
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
Frederic W. Allen, Chief Ju= stice (Ret.),