Case Title: Tooley v. Robinson Springs Corp.

Citation: 163 Vt 627, 660 A.2d 293

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
TOOLEY_V_ROBINSON_SPRINGS_CORP.94-306; 163 Vt 627; 660 A.2d 293

[Filed 29-Mar-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-306

                            FEBRUARY TERM, 1995


James F. Tooley                      }         APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }         Lamoille Superior Court
                                     }
Robinson Springs Corp.               }
                                     }         DOCKET NO. S0078-93LaC


                     In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter: 

         Defendant, Robinson Springs Corporation, appeals a summary judgment
for plaintiff, James Tooley, awarding plaintiff compensation for the
Corporation's default on a $37,500 debenture.  On June 24, 1981, Tooley
purchased a $37,500 subordinated debenture from the Corporation.  According
to the debenture's terms, Tooley would receive annual interest payments of
ten percent on the unpaid principal; and, starting in 1992, the Corporation
would begin paying back twenty percent of the principal each year until paid
in full. 

         Throughout the duration of the debenture, the Corporation was
consistently late in making the interest payments.  In 1992, the Corporation
missed its interest payment and its first installment for repayment of
principal.  In January of 1993, pursuant to the default provision of the
debenture, Tooley requested payment of the full principal and all accrued
interest.  In response, the Corporation sent two checks, in trust to Tooley's
attorney, covering the first installment of principal and the interest
payment for 1992.  Tooley's attorney deposited these funds in the firm's
IOLTA trust account, and wrote the Corporation requesting the additional
amounts due.  When the Corporation refused to pay the full principal, Tooley
initiated this court action.  Both parties moved for summary judgment, and
the court granted summary judgment for Tooley, awarding him recovery of the
principal plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon. 

         On appeal, the Corporation argues that the court's summary judgment
order was erroneous because (1) Tooley either waived or was estopped from
claiming default, (2) Tooley's claim was satisfied when the checks were
deposited, (3) Tooley was contractually obligated to sell his shares to the
Corporation and to offer his debenture for redemption, and (4) there were
genuine issues of material fact in dispute, precluding summary judgment.  On
cross-appeal, Tooley argues the court should have (1) awarded him ten percent
interest on the late payment of annual interest obligations from 1982 to
1991, and (2) denied twelve percent interest credit on the funds in the IOLTA
trust account.  We reverse the twelve percent interest credit and affirm on
all 

 

other issues. 

         Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.  Wesco, Inc. v. Hay-Now, Inc., 159 Vt. 23, 26, 613 A.2d 207,
209 (1992); V.R.C.P. 56(c).  When both parties seek summary judgment, both
parties are entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences
when the opposing party's motion is being judged.  Toys, Inc. v. F.M.
Burlington Co., 155 Vt. 44, 48, 582 A.2d 123, 125 (1990). 

         The Corporation claims that Tooley waived his right to claim default
because his conduct evidenced intent to relinquish payment in full.  A waiver
is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right and may be
evidenced by express words or by conduct.  Chimney Hills Owners' Ass'n, Inc.
v. Antignani, 136 Vt. 446, 453,