Case Title: McGee v. Vermont Federal Bank, FSB

Citation: 169 Vt. 529, 726 A.2d 42

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
McGee v. Vermont Federal Bank, FSB  (97-409); 169 Vt. 529; 726 A.2d 42

[Filed 4-Jan-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-409

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1998

Hugh McGee and Morgan McGee	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.	                        }	Addison Superior Court
                                }	
Vermont Federal Bank, FSB	}
                                }	DOCKET NO. 311-12-96 AnCv

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs Hugh and Morgan McGee appeal from the superior court's
  decision granting  defendant Vermont Federal Bank's motion for judgment on
  the pleadings pursuant to V.R.C.P.  12(b)(6).  On appeal, the McGees claim
  that Vermont Federal Bank (Bank) breached a common  law and fiduciary duty
  owed to them when it negligently misrepresented that the real property on 
  which they had made multiple mortgage payments to the bank was covered by
  insurance.  We  affirm. 

       The McGees' filed a complaint in the superior court alleging that from
  December 1994  through April 1996, a relationship developed between
  themselves and the bank which created a  duty on the part of the bank to
  act with care and prudence towards them with respect to a  mortgage on
  which they had made multiple payments.  They alleged that the bank breached
  a  common law duty when it failed to notify them that insurance on the
  property was canceled.  In  addition, the McGees alleged that the bank
  breached a fiduciary duty to them by failing to advise  them of the status
  of the insurance coverage.  

       The bank filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which the court
  granted, holding  that, as a matter of law, the bank's conduct did not
  constitute negligence because the bank owed  no duty to the McGees.  The
  court denied the McGees' request for reconsideration, and the  McGees
  appealed.  On appeal, the McGees contend that the court's decision to
  dismiss their  complaint constitutes an abuse of discretion.   

       We review a judgment on the pleadings by considering all the factual
  allegations in the  pleadings of the nonmoving party and all reasonable
  inferences that can be drawn from them as  true and allegations to the
  contrary by the moving party as false.  See In re Estate of Gorton,  __ 
  Vt. __,