C. Wayne Clark v. Richard A. DiStefano

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Richard DiStefano in an action by C. Wayne Clark to collect on a witnessed promissory note. The court held that the six-year limitations period for demand notes under 9A V.S.A. § 3-118(b) governed over the fourteen-year period for witnessed promissory notes under 12 V.S.A. § 508, pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 464.

Holdings

1. The six-year statute of limitations in 9A V.S.A. § 3-118(b) governs an action to enforce a negotiable demand note, including a witnessed demand note, and therefore Clark's action was untimely.
2. Applying 9A V.S.A. § 3-118(b) does not constitute an improper repeal by implication of 12 V.S.A. § 508 because the result follows from the interpretive directive in § 464, not from a conclusion that the later-enacted UCC provision impliedly repealed § 508.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 9A V.S.A. § 3-118(b)'s six-year limitations period for an action to enforce a demand note applies instead of 12 V.S.A. § 508's fourteen-year limitations period for a witnessed promissory note.
2. Whether 12 V.S.A. § 464 requires an applicable limitations period outside Title 12, Chapter 23 to prevail over a potentially applicable limitations period within that chapter.
3. Whether applying 9A V.S.A. § 3-118(b) to a witnessed demand note improperly repeals 12 V.S.A. § 508 by implication.

Disposition

affirmed