Case Title: Bidgood v. Town of Cavendish

Citation: 179 Vt. 530, 2005 VT 64, 878 A.2d 290

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Bidgood v. Town of Cavendish (2003-555); 179 Vt. 530; 878 A.2d 290

2005 VT 64

[Filed 08-Jun-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 64

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-555

                              APRIL TERM, 2005

  Paul L. Bidgood	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Windsor Superior Court
                                       }	
  Town of Cavendish, et.al.	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NOS. 29-1-99 and 
                                                            436-9-99 Wrcv

                                                Trial Judge: Mary Miles Teachout

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Appellant Paul Bidgood appeals a trial court order denying
  his request to rescind a settlement agreement and resume trial to
  adjudicate issues that the parties had resolved through the settlement
  agreement.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  This case involves a dispute between Mr. Bidgood and the Town
  of Cavendish over the reclassification of a town highway from Class 3 to
  Class 4.  Mr. Bidgood sought to ensure winter access to his property, which
  fronts the highway, by filing two actions in Windsor Superior Court: (1) an
  appeal from the road commissioner's reclassification determination; and (2)
  a civil action seeking a declaration of the highway's legal status and
  asserting various tort claims against the Town of Chester, Cavendish, a
  town manager, and the Agency of Natural Resources.  The trial court
  consolidated both actions and held a trial.

       ¶  3.  During trial, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement
  agreement of all contested matters.  In negotiating the agreement, Mr.
  Bidgood was represented by two attorneys.  The court incorporated the
  settlement agreement into an Order of Dismissal on May 16, 2003, and
  dismissed the case with prejudice "with leave to reopen within ninety (90)
  days" if certain conditions in the settlement agreement were not satisfied. 
  Accordingly, the deadline for reopening the case under the court's order
  was August 14, 2003.
   
       ¶  4.  On August 25, 2003, Mr. Bidgood filed a document dated August
  14, 2003, and titled, "Motion to Inform The Court That Plaintiff Rescinds
  Settlement."  On October 2, 2003, Mr. Bidgood filed another motion titled
  motion to resume trial.  The trial court denied Mr. Bidgood's motion to
  inform stating that it did not contain an appropriate request for court
  action.  The trial court also denied the motion to resume trial, finding
  that plaintiff "has not shown grounds to set aside the Order of May 16,
  2003 in a manner required by Rule 60(b) of the Vermont Rules of Civil
  Procedure,"and that the contingency set out in the dismissal order was
  unsatisfied.  Plaintiff appeals.

       ¶  5.  Mr. Bidgood  requests this court to reach the merits and
  adjudicate his claims against the opposing parties.  He also argues that
  the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss the case
  because it failed to: (1) follow statutory procedures; (2) appoint
  commissioners; (3) stay the proposed reclassification; (4) make all
  interested persons parties to the action; and (5) bring the controversy
  before the Transportation Board. 

       ¶  6.  We affirm because the doctrine of res judicata precludes Mr.
  Bidgood from collaterally attacking the validity of the order.  "Res
  judicata bars litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final
  judgment in former litigation in which the parties, subject matter, and
  causes of action are identical or substantially identical."  Kellner v.
  Kellner, 2004 VT 1, ¶ 8, 176 Vt. 571,