Title: Bessette v. Dept. of Corrections

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Bessette v. Dept. of Corrections (2006-003)

2007 VT 42

[Filed 01-Jun-2006]


       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.

                                 2007 VT 42

                                No. 2006-003


  Lawrence Bessette, Sr. and                     Supreme Court
  Constance Bessette, et al.
                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Chittenden Superior Court


  Department of Corrections, et al.              December Term, 2006


  Ben W. Joseph, J.

  Gregg M. Meyer of Kohn Rath & Meyer LLP, Hinesburg, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Stephen J. Soule of Paul Frank + Collins P.C., Burlington, for
    Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.


       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   In this interlocutory appeal, Paul Cotton, M.D.
  seeks reversal of an order reinstating him as a defendant in a wrongful
  death action brought by plaintiff, the estate of Lawrence Bessette, Jr.
  (FN1)  Defendant contends that, although plaintiff completed service within
  the time allowed by a court-granted extension under Vermont Rule of Civil
  Procedure 6, the action against him was nevertheless time-barred because
  service occurred outside the sixty days provided for in Rule 3.  We hold
  that service is still timely if completed within a properly awarded Rule 6
  extension, and therefore affirm.   
       
       ¶  2.  This case begins tragically on May 22, 2003, when Lawrence
  Bessette, Jr. committed suicide while incarcerated at the Vermont Northern
  Correctional Facility.  Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action against
  the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the private medical and mental
  health care providers with which the DOC contracted to provide care to
  inmates.  Plaintiff also named in its complaint various individual
  employees and agents of the DOC and its health care providers, including
  defendant Cotton.

       ¶  3.  Plaintiff commenced its lawsuit by filing a complaint on March
  22, 2005.  It requested and received waivers of service of the complaint
  from all of the institutional defendants and a majority of the individual
  defendants.  Defendant, however, did not waive service.  Plaintiff and the
  lawyer who served as the registered agent for both defendant's business and
  one of the institutional defendants exchanged letters which led plaintiff
  to believe that defendant would waive service.  Ultimately, however, no
  waiver arrived, and thus plaintiff sent a summons and complaint to the
  Chittenden County sheriff on May 11, 2005 with instructions for service.  A
  week later, defendant had still not been served and so, on May 19, 2005,
  plaintiff filed a motion for an enlargement of time pursuant to Rule
  6(b)(1), which the court granted the next day.   
   
       ¶  4.  Defendant was finally served on May 25, 2005.  Shortly
  thereafter he filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that under the two-year
  statute-of-limitations period for wrongful death actions, 14 V.S.A. § 1492,
  and under Rule 3, the last day he could have been served was May 21, 2005. 
  The superior court, Judge Norton presiding, agreed and dismissed defendant
  from the suit.  Other defendants who were served during the Rule 6
  enlargement period subsequently filed their own motions to dismiss on the
  same grounds.  This time, however, the superior court, Judge Joseph
  presiding, denied the motions, expressly rejecting Judge Norton's analysis. 
  Judge Joseph's order prompted plaintiff to successfully move to reinstate
  defendant as a party.  This interlocutory appeal followed. 

       ¶  5.  In this case, both parties approvingly acknowledge our
  oft-cited rule that "if the filing of a complaint is to be effective in
  tolling the statute of limitations as of that filing date, timely service
  under the Rules of Civil Procedure must be accomplished."  Weisburgh v.
  McClure Newspapers, Inc., 136 Vt. 594, 595,