Title: Daniels v. Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Daniels v. Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services (2000-574); 173 Vt. 521;
790 A.2d 376

[Filed 17-Dec-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-574

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2001

Elizabeth E. Daniels	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Bennington Superior Court
                                       }
Vermont Center for Crime               }
Victims Services	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 277-8-00 Bncv

                                                Trial Judge: John P. Wesley

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

       Plaintiff Elizabeth Daniels appeals from the Bennington Superior
  Court's Rule 12(b)(6)  dismissal of her declaratory judgment action. 
  Plaintiff, a crime victim, was compensated by the  defendant, Vermont
  Center for Crime Victims Services (CCVS), under the Compensation to Victims 
  of Crime Act, 13 V.S.A. §§ 5351-5361.  Thereafter, she recovered
  substantial damages from the  perpetrator's employer in the settlement of a
  personal injury action, and offered to repay CCVS only  if CCVS bore a
  proportionate share of attorney's fees under the common fund exception to
  the  American Rule on attorney's fees.  In dismissing the action, the
  superior court held that plaintiff must  reimburse CCVS without deducting
  the attorney's fees.  We agree and affirm.

       The facts are derived from plaintiff's complaint.  In March 1998,
  plaintiff suffered serious  injury as a result of an attack.  Her attacker
  was later charged and convicted for his criminal conduct.  Approximately
  two weeks after the attack, plaintiff applied to CCVS for compensation
  under the  Compensation to Victims of Crime Act, 13 V.S.A. §§ 5351-5361. 
  She received $10,000 from  CCVS, upon condition that she subrogate her
  interest in any recovery from a person liable for her  injuries to CCVS to
  the extent of the payment, as required by the Act, 13 V.S.A. § 5357.  Part
  of the  payment was made to healthcare providers with the remainder going
  to plaintiff directly.

       In March 2000, with the aid of counsel, plaintiff settled a civil
  action against her attacker's  employer for an amount exceeding the $10,000
  payment to her from CCVS.  Rather than pay the full  $10,000 back to CCVS,
  plaintiff's attorney put it in escrow and filed a complaint for declaratory 
  judgment with the Bennington Superior Court.  Based on the common fund
  exception to the  American rule on attorney's fees, plaintiff maintained
  that CCVS is not entitled to full reimbursement  of the $10,000, but rather
  must pay from it a proportionate share of the one-third contingency fee she 
  incurred in settling the claim.  Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
  failure to state a claim upon  which relief can be granted, V.R.C.P.
  12(b)(6), which plaintiff opposed.  The 

 

  superior court granted defendant's motion, ruling that the plain language
  of the subrogation statute,  13 V.S.A. § 5357, precludes plaintiff from
  relief.  The court bolstered its conclusion by finding that  the
  considerations of equity and policy behind the common fund doctrine "weigh
  heavily" against its  application in this case.

       On appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) the plain meaning of the
  subrogation statute does not  preclude application of the common fund
  exception to the American Rule on attorney's fees,  (2) under the common
  fund exception, CCVS should be required to pay a proportionate share of 
  plaintiff's lawyer's one-third contingency fee, and (3) the trial court
  struck too early by dismissing  plaintiff's declaratory judgment action
  without leave to amend.

       The purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
  which relief can be granted  is to test the law of the claim, not the facts
  which support it.  Levinsky v. Diamond, 140 Vt. 595,  600,