Case Title: The Lodge at Bolton Valley Condominium Assoc. v. Hamilton

Citation: 180 Vt. 497, 2006 VT 41, 905 A.2d 611

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
The Lodge at Bolton Valley Condominium Assn. v. Hamilton (2005-442); 180 Vt. 497; 
905 A.2d 611

2006 VT 41

[Filed 15-May-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 41

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-442

                              MARCH TERM, 2006

  The Lodge at Bolton Valley Condominium  }      APPEALED FROM:
  Association                             }
                                          }
       v.                                 }      Chittenden Superior Court
                                          }  
  Edward J. Hamilton, Carolyn T.          }
  Hamilton, Banknorth, N.A.,              }      DOCKET NO. S0372-05 CnC
  f/k/a Granite Savings Bank              }
  and Trust Co.                           }  
                                                 Trial Judge: Richard W. Norton

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff Lodge at Bolton Valley Condominium Association
  appeals the dismissal of its first amended complaint, which included in
  personam claims against defendants Edward J. Hamilton and Carolyn T.
  Hamilton and in rem claims against three condominium units purchased by
  defendants.  The superior court dismissed the Association's claims pursuant
  to 27A V.S.A. § 3 116(e), the statute of limitations for foreclosure of
  condominium liens.  In its appeal, the Association argues that it brought
  all of its claims within the time period required by statute, or, in the
  alternative, that its claims should be tolled by statute or under the
  doctrines of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel.  The Association
  also contends that the court erred by dismissing the complaint in its
  entirety instead of considering its in rem and in personam claims
  separately.  We reverse and remand the action to the superior court.

       ¶  2.  The Association alleges the following facts, which we must
  treat as true for the purposes of considering the superior court's
  dismissal.  Gilman v. Maine Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2003 VT 55, ¶ 14, 175 Vt.
  554,