Case Title: Montgomery v. Devoid

Citation: 2006 VT 127

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Montgomery v. Devoid (2005-106)

2006 VT 127

[Filed 22-Nov-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 127

                                No. 2005-106


  Thomas Montgomery                              Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Chittenden Superior Court


  Carl L. Devoid, Jr., Carl L. Devoid, Sr.,      March Term, 2006
  Wayne M. Devoid, Leonard R. Devoid,
  Elizabeth M. Witham and The Leonard R. 
  Devoid Revocable Trust


  Richard W. Norton, J.

  Alan A. Bjerke of Bauer, Gravel, Farnham, Nuovo, Parker & Lang, Burlington,
    for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Richard R. Goldsborough of Perry, Schmucker & Goldsborough, PLLC, South
    Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee Carl Devoid, Sr.

  Susan J. Flynn of Clark, Long, Werner & Flynn, P.C., Burlington, for
    Defendants-Appellees Leonard R. Devoid and The Leonard R. Devoid Revocable
    Trust.

  Christopher L. Davis, Kevin E. Brown and Peter F. Langrock of Langrock
    Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, for Defendant-Appellee Elizabeth M. Witham.

  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  REIBER, C.J.   Following the theft of approximately $80,000 in
  cash from his residence in Underhill, Vermont, plaintiff Thomas Montgomery
  filed a civil suit to recover the money and named as defendants - in
  addition to the alleged thief, Carl Devoid, Jr. - several of Carl Jr.'s
  relatives.  Montgomery's primary allegation was that each of the defendants
  was liable for the conversion of the stolen funds.  After considering
  cross-motions for summary judgment on claims of conversion, fraud, and
  conspiracy, the Chittenden Superior Court determined that only some of the
  defendants were liable.  Montgomery appealed, and one of the defendants
  cross-appealed.  We affirm in part and reverse in part.

       ¶  2.  The defendants named in the complaint were: Carl Devoid, Jr.,
  the alleged thief; Wayne Devoid, his brother; Carl Devoid, Sr., his father;
  Leonard Devoid, his now-deceased uncle; Elizabeth Witham, his uncle's
  partner; and the Leonard Devoid Revocable Trust.  On May 20, 2002, Carl Jr.
  allegedly broke into Montgomery's home and stole, among other things,
  $80,000 in cash.  The next day, Carl Sr. appeared at Witham and Leonard's
  home and asked them to help him conceal from the Internal Revenue Service
  money that he said he had earned doing a big siding and roofing job. 
  According to Witham's deposition testimony from the following year, Carl
  Sr. suggested that he give the couple $10,000 in cash and, in exchange,
  they would write him two separate checks for $5,000, which he would deposit
  in his account and use to pay off a car loan.  Witham testified that it
  "didn't seem wrong to be able to take cash and put it into our accounts, as
  long as he had worked for it."  Accordingly, Witham and Leonard took the
  money from Carl Sr. and wrote out the checks to him that day.  Carl Sr.
  later used the money to pay off the loan.
   
       ¶  3.  Two months later, on July 18, in response to a police
  investigation, Wayne Devoid told detectives that his brother, Carl Jr., had
  robbed the Montgomery home, that he had helped his brother count the money
  the same day as the robbery, and that Carl Jr. had purchased a number of
  expensive items, including two cars, with the stolen money.  Records from
  the Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that Carl Jr. purchased one
  vehicle on the day of the burglary and one the day after.  A further
  investigation and search of Carl Jr.'s residence the following week
  corroborated the details of Wayne's story and revealed recent purchases of
  four vehicles.  The police also recovered some of Carl Jr.'s property from
  his father, Carl Sr., who had removed it from Carl Jr.'s residence shortly
  before the police executed their search warrant.  Carl Sr. admitted to the
  detective that he had taken some property out of Carl Jr.'s apartment over
  the weekend at Carl Jr.'s request.  There was also evidence that Carl Sr.
  had stored at least two of the stolen vehicles on his brother Leonard's
  property.

       ¶  4.  Wayne also told detectives that Carl Jr. had paid off his
  father's car loan.  The Ford Motor Credit Company, which financed Carl
  Sr.'s 1999 Ford van, reported that on July 3, 2002, it received a payment
  of $10,931 in full satisfaction of the lien on the van.  The police then
  interviewed Carl Sr., who told them that he had paid off the car loan with
  a loan from his brother, Leonard Devoid, and Leonard's partner, Elizabeth
  Witham.

       ¶  5.  According to Witham's deposition testimony, Witham and Leonard
  found out about the source of the money at some point between May 2002,
  when they deposited the cash and wrote the checks, and September 2002, when
  the police came to interview them.  Witham testified that "one time while I
  was [gone] Carl Sr. came to our house and talked to Len and . . . Len
  questioned Carl and found out where that money came from.  And Len told me
  that night."  Upon hearing that information from Leonard, Witham contacted
  Carl Sr. and told him that she "was angry that he had put us in the middle. 
  And we didn't know how to get out of it without getting him in trouble." 
  Also, at some point during that summer, Leonard agreed to allow Carl Sr. to
  store some vehicles on his property.
   
       ¶  6.  On September 23, 2002, a detective came to Leonard and
  Witham's home to interview them.  Fearing that Carl Sr. was in a lot of
  trouble and would go to jail if they told the truth, they stated that they
  had given him a $10,000 loan from cash they had saved for a vacation they
  never took.  A later search of Witham and Leonard's bank accounts revealed
  that, during the week of May 20, each had made a $5000 cash deposit into
  their respective accounts and each had written a check to Carl Sr. for the
  same amount.  The detective also informed Leonard that police had removed
  the vehicles Carl Sr. had stored at Leonard's property because they had
  been purchased with stolen money.

       ¶  7.  On January 10, 2003, Montgomery filed suit against Carl Devoid,
  Jr., Carl Devoid, Sr., Wayne Devoid, Leonard Devoid, Elizabeth Witham, and
  Leonard Devoid as Trustee of the Leonard Devoid Revocable Trust, which had
  been established on May 17, 2002 and contained many of Leonard's and
  Witham's assets.  On February 15, 2003, Leonard passed away, and he was
  never deposed.  Carl Jr., Carl Sr, and Wayne Devoid all refused to answer
  most of the substantive questions at their respective depositions.  Carl
  Sr. and Wayne cited the Fifth Amendment privilege against
  self-incrimination.  In March 2004, Montgomery moved for summary judgment
  against all defendants, and Carl Sr., the Leonard Trust, and Witham each
  filed cross motions for summary judgment.

       ¶  8.  The trial court issued a written order on February 16, 2005,
  concluding that: (1) neither Witham, Leonard, nor the Trust was liable for
  conversion; (2) Carl Sr. was liable for conversion as a matter of law, but
  only for $10,000 rather than the entire $80,000; (3) Carl Jr. and Wayne
  were liable for the conversion of the full $80,000.  On appeal, Montgomery
  claims that the court erred in not assigning any liability to Witham,
  Leonard, and the Trust, and in restricting Carl Sr.'s liability to only
  $10,000.  According to Montgomery, each of the defendants should be jointly
  and severally liable for the entire $80,000 loss.  Witham, the Trust, and
  Carl Sr. each file responsive briefs, and Carl Sr. argues in a cross-appeal
  that the court erred in holding him liable for any amount.  Carl Jr. and
  Wayne did not appeal from the court's judgment.
   
       ¶  9.  We review a summary judgment decision de novo.  White v.
  Quechee Lakes Landowners' Ass'n, 170 Vt. 25, 28,