Title: Letourneau v. Hickey

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Letourneau v. Hickey (2001-403); 174 Vt. 481; 807 A.2d 437

[Filed 16-Jul-2002]


                                 ENTRY ORDER


                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-403

                               MAY TERM, 2002

  Laurent and Alicia Letourneau	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Orleans Superior Court
                                       }	
  Charles D. Hickey,	               }
  Michael and Susan Judd	       }	DOCKET NO.48-2-01 Oscv 

                                                Trial Judge: Howard E. Van 
                                                             Benthuysen 

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Plaintiffs Laurent and Alicia Letourneau appeal the superior court's
  orders granting defendant Charles Hickey summary judgment on plaintiffs'
  legal malpractice claim, granting defendants Michael and Susan Judd summary
  judgment on plaintiffs' slander claim, and summarily denying plaintiffs'
  motion for relief from a judgment in a prior lawsuit involving the
  Letourneaus and the Judds.  We affirm.

       The present case arises out of an earlier lawsuit involving a boundary
  dispute.  The Letourneaus and Judds are neighbors who own adjacent
  agricultural property.  The Letourneaus tapped maple trees on land claimed
  by both parties.  The Judds sued the Letourneaus in 1998, seeking a
  declaration of the boundary line between the parties' properties.  Charles
  Hickey represented the Letourneaus in that case.  Following a two-day
  hearing, the trial court awarded the Judds title to the disputed property. 
  In its May 1999 decision, the court rejected the Letourneaus' adverse
  possession claim, but determined that the Letourneaus had acquired a
  prescriptive profit to harvest maple sap from trees in the disputed area. 
  No appeal was taken from that decision.  When the Letourneaus failed to pay
  Attorney Hickey for his legal services, he brought a collection action
  against them and obtained a default judgment in October 1999.
   
       In February 2001, the Letourneaus filed a complaint against Attorney
  Hickey and the Judds, alleging that Attorney Hickey had committed legal
  malpractice during his representation of them in the boundary dispute case,
  and that Michael Judd had slandered them during his testimony in that case. 
  Further, based on their malpractice claim, the Letourneaus sought relief
  from the judgment entered against them.  In two separate decisions, the
  superior court granted summary judgment to Attorney Hickey and the Judds. 
  The court ruled that the Letourneaus had waived their right to bring the
  malpractice claim by failing to raise it as a compulsory counterclaim in
  the collection action.  With respect to the slander claim, the court ruled
  that the allegedly slanderous testimony was privileged, and that, in any
  case, the Letourneaus had failed to provide evidence of any actual harm.

 

  The court also denied the Letourneaus' motion for relief from judgment
  without explanation in a motion reaction form.  On appeal, the Letourneaus
  argue that the superior court erred by granting summary judgment to
  Attorney Hickey and the Judds, and abused its discretion by dismissing
  their motion for relief from judgment without holding a hearing or making
  findings.

       In their first claim of error, the Letourneaus argue that the
  compulsory counterclaim rule of V.R.C.P. 13(a) does not apply to bar their
  malpractice claim because the judgment against them in the prior collection
  action was by default.  In relevant part, Rule 13(a) provides as follows:

    A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the
    time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing
    party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is
    the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not
    require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
    the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

  Generally, a counterclaim is compulsory if it bears a "logical
  relationship" to the opposing party's earlier claim.  Stratton v. Steele,
  144 Vt. 31, 35,