Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a trial court order granting plaintiffs relief from judgment under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) after the underlying action had been dismissed for plaintiffs' refusal to comply with a settlement agreement and enforcement order. The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the post-appeal Rule 60(b) motion but that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting relief. The Court reversed the order reopening the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion after the prior appeal had been dismissed.
- Whether plaintiffs demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from the final dismissal under Rule 60(b)(6).
Holdings
- A trial court has jurisdiction to consider a Rule 60(b) motion filed after an appeal has concluded without first obtaining leave from the appellate court.
- Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because they failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances and were responsible for the predicament resulting in dismissal.
Key quotations
“The rule "may not substitute for a timely appeal or provide relief from an ill-advised tactical decision or from some other free, calculated, and deliberate choice of action."” (at 845)
“There must be an end to litigation someday, and free, calculated, deliberate choices are not to be relieved from.” (at 846)
Factual background
Plaintiffs brought negligence and loss-of-consortium claims based on injuries allegedly sustained when Lauren McCleery slipped on ice in defendants' parking lot. During mediation, the parties reached an oral settlement under which defendants would pay $14,000 in exchange for general releases, but plaintiffs refused to sign the releases and asserted an unsupported condition that payment had to be made within ten days. After the court enforced the settlement, plaintiffs continued refusing to comply, and the action was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b)(2). Plaintiffs later changed their position and sought to reopen the case and enforce the settlement, which the trial court granted under Rule 60(b).
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed negligence and loss-of-consortium claims arising from a slip-and-fall injury. The parties reached an oral settlement, but plaintiffs refused to execute releases, leading the trial court to enforce the settlement and later dismiss the action without prejudice after plaintiffs continued refusing to comply. After an earlier appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with a court order, plaintiffs moved under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case. The trial court granted that motion, and defendants took this interlocutory appeal.