Title: Bowman v. Ackerman

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Bowman v. Ackerman (2003-404); 177 Vt. 589; 865 A.2d 1120

2004 VT 112

[Filed 29-Oct-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 112

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-404

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2004

  William M. Bowman, III	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Franklin Superior Court
                                       }	
  James and Renee Ackerman, Gary and   }
  Lindsay Ryan, Richard Schattman and  }	DOCKET NO. S127-99 FC
  Ruth Dennis, Lawrence and 	       }	
  Barbara Young                        }
  					        Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins
                                                             Ben W. Joseph

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

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff William Bowman III appeals the superior court's
  order awarding defendants Alan Simoneau and Sal Wiggin attorney's fees and
  costs as a V.R.C.P. 11 sanction against Bowman and his counsel for pursuing
  a frivolous declaratory judgment action against Simoneau and Wiggin. 
  Because Simoneau and Wiggin failed to follow Rule 11's strict procedural
  requirements, the court erred in granting their motion to sanction Bowman
  and his counsel.  Accordingly, we reverse the superior court's order and
  reinstate a previous order denying the motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

       ¶  2.  In June 1999, Bowman filed a declaratory judgment action
  seeking to resolve issues concerning a right of way located on his
  property.  Bowman named several defendants, including Simoneau and Wiggin,
  who owned adjacent property.  Simoneau and Wiggin filed multiple motions to
  dismiss, all of which were denied, before Judge Joseph granted their motion
  for summary judgment in September 2001 and dismissed them as party
  defendants in the action. In February 2002, Simoneau and Wiggin filed a
  motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Bowman, seeking an award of attorney's
  fees and costs incurred in the action.  On April, 1, 2002, following a
  hearing, Judge Jenkins denied the motion because Simoneau and Wiggin had
  never served Bowman with a separate motion at least twenty-one days before
  filing the motion in court, as required by Rule 11.  The court awarded
  Bowman $325 in attorney's fees incurred in defending against the motion for
  sanctions.
   
       ¶  3.  Ten days later, Simoneau and Wiggin filed a motion for
  reconsideration.  In February 2003, a final judgment was entered in favor
  of the remaining defendants.  That same month, Judge Joseph held a hearing
  on the motion to reconsider Judge Jenkins's order denying Rule 11
  sanctions.  On June 2, 2003, Judge Joseph vacated Judge Jenkins's April
  2002 order and awarded Simoneau and Wiggin $14,743 in attorney's fees and
  costs as a Rule 11 sanction against Bowman for pursuing the declaratory
  judgment action against them.  The court acknowledged that the motion for
  sanctions did not meet Rule 11's procedural requirements, but concluded
  that, by requesting the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions in their original
  answer to Bowman's complaint, Simoneau and Wiggin had provided adequate
  notice to Bowman of their intent to seek such sanctions if he continued to
  pursue his lawsuit.

       ¶  4.  On appeal, Bowman argues that Judge Joseph abused his
  discretion by awarding Rule 11 sanctions because Simoneau and Wiggin failed
  to satisfy the rule's strict procedural requirements and, in any event,
  failed to establish any violation of the rule.  Bowman also argues that the
  court abused its discretion by failing to apply the factors governing
  imposition of sanctions, by failing to make written findings in support of
  its order, and by failing to determine the least severe monetary sanction
  sufficient to deter repetition of the alleged offending conduct.  Bowman
  requests that this Court reverse Judge Joseph's June 2003 order, reinstate
  Judge Jenkins's April 2002 order, including the award of $325 in attorney's
  fees, and remand the matter for the superior court to award additional
  reasonable attorney's fees he incurred in opposing the sanctions motion.

       ¶  5.  We conclude that Rule 11 sanctions were unavailable to
  Simoneau and Wiggins because they failed to comply with the rule's
  procedural requirements; therefore, we do not reach Bowman's remaining
  arguments.  Pursuant to a 1996 amendment adopting the amended federal rule,
  Vermont's Rule 11 requires that a motion for sanctions "shall be made
  separately from other motions or requests" and "shall not be filed with or
  presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion .
  . . the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial
  is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected."  V.R.C.P. 11(c)(1)(A).  This
  provision is intended to mitigate Rule 11's chilling effect by affording
  litigants some protection against sanctions, to formalize procedural due
  process considerations concerning notice, and to encourage the withdrawal
  of offending papers without involving the trial court.  5A C. Wright & A.
  Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1337.2, at 722 (3d ed. 2004); see
  Agency of Natural Res. v. Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 174 Vt. 498,
  499,