Daniel J. and Jodi C. Kelly v. Edwin P. Lord, Helen Lord, IngaBritt Lillbask, Morris Teig, Robert Ziccardi, Carl Roof and Department of Corrections, 173 Vt. 21

Summary

The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed orders enforcing specific performance of an installment land contract for Stonecliff Farm, as modified by a subsequent engineering and cleanup agreement. The court addressed appellate jurisdiction, the validity and effect of the trust assignment and modification, delivery of the deed to the buyers' attorney, and cancellation of the buyers' remaining installment obligations.

Holdings

1. The partial judgments were not proper V.R.C.P. 54(b) final judgments because, after dismissal of the foreclosure claim, the action involved a single contract claim and neither judgment finally adjudicated the entirety of that claim.
2. The Supreme Court could suspend the applicable appellate procedures under V.R.A.P. 2 and exercise jurisdiction because reaching the merits would expedite the litigation, avoid repeated appeals, and prevent continued harm to the parties, property, and public.
3. The trustees assumed Lord's contractual duties by their conduct, and therefore had authority to negotiate and modify the bilateral installment contract.
4. Specific performance requiring Lord to deliver the quitclaim deed to buyers' attorney was equitable and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
5. The installment contract merged into the engineering agreement, and the merged contract cancelled buyers' obligation to make further monthly installment payments.
6. V.R.C.P. 69 did not govern enforcement because it concerns execution on money judgments, but the Supreme Court could direct enforcement under V.R.C.P. 70 by authorizing another person to deliver the deed with the same legal effect as delivery by Lord.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court's partial judgments qualified as final judgments under V.R.C.P. 54(b) and were appealable.
2. Whether the Supreme Court could exercise discretionary jurisdiction under V.R.A.P. 2 despite the interlocutory nature of the orders.
3. Whether Lord's assignment of the installment land contract, together with the parties' conduct, delegated Lord's contractual duties to the trust and authorized the trustees to modify the contract.
4. Whether specific performance requiring delivery of the deed to buyers' attorney was equitable and supported by the record.
5. Whether the deed-delivery judgment could be enforced despite not being a final judgment and whether V.R.C.P. 69 governed enforcement.
6. Whether the installment contract merged into the engineering agreement and thereby cancelled buyers' obligation to make further installment payments.
7. Whether an allegedly erroneous finding concerning ANR's cleanup requirements required reversal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded