Title: Imported Car Center, Inc. v. Billings

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTED_CAR_CENTER_INC_V_BILLINGS.92-407; 163 Vt 76; 653 A.2d 765

[Filed:  28-Oct-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 14-Dec-1994]

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. 


                           No. 92-407


Imported Car Center, Inc.                    Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                       Chittenden Superior Court

Dorothy & Robert Billings                    February Term, 1994



Alden T. Bryan, J.

Mary G. Kirkpatrick of Lisman & Lisman, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

Richard R. Goldsborough of Jarvis & Kaplan, Burlington, for 
 defendants-appellants



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



    GIBSON,  J.   Defendants Dorothy and Robert Billings appeal from the
trial court's denial of their motion for a new trial. We affirm. 

    In May 1989, Dorothy Billings was discharged from her employment as
office manager and bookkeeper for plaintiff Imported Car Center, Inc.
(ICC).  In June, ICC brought suit against Billings, alleging that she had
misappropriated ICC funds and converted them to her own use.  Billings
counterclaimed for unjust discharge and denial of employee benefits
promised by ICC. In connection with its lawsuit, ICC attached property
owned by defendant in the Town of 

 

Milton.  Subsequently, defendant transferred the property to herself and
her husband, Robert Billings, as tenants by the entirety.  In response, ICC
amended its complaint to add Robert Billings as a party defendant, alleging
that defendants had acted fraudulently in transferring the property, to the
hindrance of plaintiff's rights against Dorothy Billings. 

    Prior to trial, plaintiff deposed Dorothy Billings.  At the time,
Billings was under criminal investigation for embezzlement of funds from
plaintiff, and she responded to questions concerning her management of
funds with an invocation of the Fifth Amendment.  By the time the civil
trial began, Billings had been charged with the crime of grand larceny. 

    The civil case was tried in stages.  In phase one, the jury returned a
verdict against Dorothy Billings in the amount of $90,555: $26,795 on
account of misappropriated funds and $63,760 for consequential damages.  In
phase two, the jury awarded ICC $80,000 in punitive damages on account of
the conversion and found that a fraudulent conveyance had taken place. 
Defendants moved for a new trial, which the court denied.  This appeal
followed. 

    Consideration of a motion for new trial rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court.  V.R.C.P. 59(a); Hoague v. Cota, 140 Vt.
588, 591,