Woodbine Condominium Ass'n v. Lowe

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a condominium foreclosure for lack of jurisdiction because the homeowners failed to obtain the trial court’s permission to appeal within the required ten-day period. The court held that the permission requirement applicable to mortgage foreclosures also applies to foreclosures based on condominium assessment liens and cannot be circumvented through a post-foreclosure Rule 60(b) motion. The court denied sanctions because the appeal presented a good-faith argument not directly foreclosed by existing precedent.

Holdings

1. A party may not circumvent the statutory permission-to-appeal requirement for a foreclosure judgment by filing a later Rule 60(b) motion and appealing its denial after the redemption period has expired. Because the Lowes did not obtain permission to appeal within ten days, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction.
2. Foreclosures based on condominium assessment liens are subject to the same ten-day permission-to-appeal requirement as mortgage foreclosures.
3. The alleged failure to join Chittenden Bank did not affect the rights of the parties before the court and did not justify circumventing the Legislature's policy favoring finality of foreclosure judgments.
4. Sanctions were not warranted because, although the appeal was weak, counsel had no directly contrary controlling case and appeared to have made a good-faith argument that condominium assessment-lien foreclosures should be treated differently from mortgage foreclosures.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Vermont Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review a foreclosure-related appeal when the homeowners failed to obtain the trial court's permission to appeal within ten days of entry of the foreclosure judgment.
2. Whether the permission-to-appeal requirement applicable to mortgage foreclosures also applies to foreclosures based on condominium assessment liens.
3. Whether the alleged failure to join a junior lienholder justified reopening the foreclosure judgment or otherwise circumventing the statutory finality of foreclosure judgments.
4. Whether sanctions under V.R.A.P. 25(d) should be imposed on the homeowners' attorney.

Disposition

dismissed