Case Title: Will v. Mill Condominium Owners' Assoc.

Citation: 176 Vt. 380, 2004 VT 22, 848 A.2d 336

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Will v. Mill Condominium Owners' Assn. (2003-075); 176 Vt. 380; 848 A.2d 336

2004 VT 22

[Filed 12-Mar-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 22

                                No. 2003-075

  Anne M. Will	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windsor Superior Court

  Mill Condominium Owners' Association, 	 September Term, 2003	
  Martin Nitka, Esq., Allen and Linda 
  Seiple, Janice Graham and Cecilla McMillen 

  Alan W. Cook, J.

  Stephen S. Ankuda of Parker & Ankuda, P.C., Springfield, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.  

  Jennifer G. Mihalich of Lynn & Associates, P.C., Burlington, for
    Defendants-Appellees Mill Condominium Owners' Association, Graham and
    McMillen.

  Robert Reis and Matthew D. Anderson of Webber, Reis, Holler & Urso, LLP,
    Rutland for Defendant-Appellee Nitka.

  T. Darrah Moore of Birmingham & Moore, P.C., Ludlow, for
    Defendants-Appellees Seiple.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   Plaintiff Anne M. Will appeals from the trial
  court's order confirming the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of her
  condominium for failure to pay dues, and the summary judgment dismissal of
  her amended complaint for declaratory relief against defendants Mill
  Condominium Owners' Association, Martin Nitka, Esq., Allen and Linda
  Seiple, Janice Graham and Cecilla McMillen.  Appellant argues that: (1) the
  application of the nonjudicial foreclosure sale statute to unpaid
  condominium dues violates the Vermont Constitution; (2) the sale was void
  under the contract doctrine of mutual mistake; (3) the condominium
  association and its agent, Martin Nitka, breached their duties by selling
  her property at below-market value; and (4) deviation from the nonjudicial
  foreclosure statute should void the sale and deed. (FN1)  Because the
  foreclosure sale was not conducted in a reasonable manner, we vacate
  summary judgment and remand to the trial court for entry of judgment
  voiding the foreclosure sale of appellant's condominium unit. 
   
       ¶  2.  Appellant owned a residential condominium unit at The Mill
  Condominiums in Ludlow, Vermont.  After appellant failed to pay her
  condominium dues over a period of time, the officers of the Mill
  Condominium Owners' Association instructed attorney Martin Nitka to
  foreclose on the property.  Attorney Nitka thereafter commenced a
  nonjudicial foreclosure pursuant to 27A V.S.A. § 3-116.  Appellant had
  notice of the foreclosure sale and discussed the matter with attorney
  Nitka.  She informed him that she would wire him the unpaid dues and asked
  him to postpone the sale scheduled for July 12, 2001, to a later time. 
  Appellant's recollection of the discussion was that the sale would not take
  place if she wired the money to attorney Nitka's account by the close of
  the business day, July 16.  According to attorney Nitka, he agreed to delay
  the sale only until July 13, but after the telephone conversation with
  appellant realized that he had other commitments, and moved the sale to
  July 16, 2001.  At 10:00 a.m. on July 16, 2001, attorney Nitka proceeded
  with the auction of appellant's condominium.  Appellant's wire transfer of
  funds sufficient to cover the dues, fees, and costs owed arrived at 11:00
  a.m.  By that time, the property had been sold to defendants Allen and
  Linda Seiple for $3510.10, the amount necessary to pay the delinquent dues,
  attorney's fees, and the costs of foreclosure.  The trial court found that,
  at the time of the sale, attorney Nitka and the Seiples apparently believed
  that the unit was subject to a mortgage of $45,000.  It was later
  determined that the mortgage had been earlier discharged.  The trial court
  found that the fair market value of the condominium at the time of sale was
  approximately $70,000.  Attorney Nitka delivered the deed to the Seiples on
  August 31, 2001.  

       ¶  3.  In October 2001, appellant filed a complaint seeking a
  declaratory judgment setting aside the nonjudicial foreclosure.  In
  December 2001, after trial, the court entered judgment for defendants on
  the record.  The court granted appellant thirty days to amend her complaint
  to include a damages claim.  Appellant filed an amended complaint, and
  defendants Nitka and the Seiples filed motions for summary judgment.  While
  these motions were pending, the court issued an entry order confirming the
  foreclosure sale, and conveying the entire interest in the property to the
  Seiples.  The court then granted summary judgment for defendants Nitka and
  the Seiples on July 5, 2002, after concluding that appellant could not
  maintain any cause of action against them.  On January 17, 2003, the court
  granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants on the same basis. 
  On the same date, the court granted appellant permission to appeal its
  order of confirmation.  This appeal of the trial court's confirmation order
  and the court's summary judgment dismissal of appellant's amended complaint
  followed.
   
       ¶  4.  Appellant first argues that the application of the nonjudicial
  foreclosure sale statute to unpaid condominium dues violates the Vermont
  Constitution.  However, appellant did not adequately raise this argument
  below so as to preserve it for appeal.  We reject appellant's assertion
  that she preserved this issue for our review by mentioning it in a pretrial
  memorandum filed with the trial court.  Appellant did not raise this
  argument in her initial complaint, her amended complaint, or in her
  memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 
  Therefore, she has waived her right to raise this argument on appeal.  See
  Bull v. Pinkham Eng'g Assocs., 170 Vt. 450, 459, 752 A.2d. 26, 33 (2000)
  ("Contentions not raised or fairly presented to the trial court are not
  preserved for appeal."). 

       ¶  5.  Appellant also argues that the foreclosure sale was void under
  the contract doctrine of mutual mistake.  The doctrine of "mutual mistake"
  provides that "[w]here a contract has been entered into under a mutual
  mistake of the parties regarding a material fact affecting the subject
  matter thereof, it may be avoided . . . at the instance of the injured
  party, and an action lies to recover money paid under it."  Rancourt v.
  Verba, 165 Vt. 225, 228,