Title: Marine Midland Bank v. Bicknell

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Marine Midland Bank v. Bicknell (2003-127); 176 Vt. 389; 848 A.2d 1134

2004 VT 25

[Filed 19-Mar-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 25

                                No. 2003-127

  Marine Midland Bank	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Addison Superior Court

  David R. Bicknell	                         October Term, 2003

  Helen M. Toor, J.

  Alan A. Bjerke of Bauer, Anderson & Gravel, Burlington, and Steven D.
    Karlin of Platzer, Swergold, Karlin, Levine, Goldberg & Jaslow, New York,
    New York, for  Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Jon T. Alexander of Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC, Burlington, for
    Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ.

       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   Marine Midland Bank appeals the trial court's
  dismissal of its action to domesticate and enforce a 1991 New York judgment
  against appellee, David Bicknell.  We agree with the trial court that the
  action is barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore we affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  In 1991, appellant obtained a judgment against David R.
  Bicknell and a co-defendant in the amount of $231,292.98 in the Supreme
  Court for the County of New York, New York.  The judgment remains
  unsatisfied.  According to appellant, at the time the judgment was entered,
  and up until sometime in June 2000, Mr. Bicknell remained a resident of the
  State of New York.  Around June 2000, upon finding that Mr. Bicknell had
  relocated to Vermont, (FN1) appellant sought to domesticate the New York
  judgment in the Vermont courts.  Mr. Bicknell moved to dismiss for failure
  to state a claim, arguing that the action was barred by 12 V.S.A. § 506,
  the eight year statute of limitations for actions on judgments.  The court
  found that § 506 applied and that, contrary to appellant's assertion,
  Vermont's tolling statute, 12 V.S.A § 552, did not extend to this action
  because both parties were New York residents when the cause of action
  accrued.  Accordingly, the court granted Mr. Bicknell's motion to dismiss. 
  This appeal followed.

       ¶  3.  On review of a decision under Rule 12(b)(6) that plaintiff has
  failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, we "must assume the
  factual allegations in [the] complaint are true," and determine whether "it
  appears beyond doubt that there exist no circumstances or facts which the
  plaintiff could prove above the claim made in his complaint which would
  entitle him to relief."  Ass'n of Haystack Prop. Owners, Inc. v. Sprague,
  145 Vt. 443, 444, 446,