Case Title: Woodbine Condominium Assn. v. Lowe

Citation: 174 Vt. 457, 806 A.2d 1001

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Woodbine Condominium Association v. Lowe  (2002-151); 174 Vt. 457;
806 A.2d 1001

[Filed 24-Jun-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-151

                               JUNE TERM, 2002


Woodbine Condominium Association        }       APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
  v.                                    }       Chittenden Superior Court
                                        }
Charles R. and Debra M. Lowe            }
                                        }       DOCKET NO. S0952-00 CnC

  In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Woodbine Condominium Association moves to dismiss the appeal of
  Charles R. Lowe and Debra M. Lowe for lack of jurisdiction.  The
  Association argues that because the Lowes failed to seek timely permission
  of the trial court to appeal from a judgment of foreclosure on their
  condominium, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.  The
  Association also requests that we impose V.R.A.P. 25(d) sanctions on
  appellants' attorney because he had no reasonable basis to believe that
  this appeal was grounded in law and was filed only to cause unnecessary
  delay.  We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but we do not
  impose sanctions.

       The relevant facts on appeal are not in dispute.  In July 2000, after
  homeowners Charles and Debra Lowe had fallen behind on their condominium
  association assessments, Woodbine Condominium Association (the Association)
  filed a complaint requesting foreclosure on homeowners' property. 
  Homeowners did not file anything in response to the complaint. 
  Accordingly, the Association moved the trial court to grant them default
  judgment.  The court held a hearing on the default judgment motion, but
  defendants did not appear at the hearing.  Nearly a month later, the court
  issued a default judgment and signed a decree of foreclosure.  After the
  redemption period had expired, the court issued the Association a
  certificate of non-redemption and a writ of possession.  More than a month
  later defendants filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the default
  judgment and the decree of foreclosure, arguing that they should be granted
  relief because the Association failed to join Chittenden Bank, a junior
  lienholder, in the foreclosure proceedings and because of other equitable
  considerations.  See V.R.C.P. 60(b).  On December 12, 2001, the court
  denied the motion; homeowners filed a motion to reconsider in response.  On
  February 21, 2002, the court denied the motion to reconsider.  On March 22,
  2002, homeowners filed a notice of appeal from both the December 12 and
  February 21 judgments of the trial court.  Shortly thereafter, the
  Association filed this motion to dismiss and a motion for Rule 25(d)
  sanctions against homeowners' attorney.



       The Association argues that our decision in Citibank, N.A. v.
  Groshens, 171 Vt. 639,