Appeal untimely. Being away from mail during vacation or otherwise failing to open mail is not excusable neglect justifying extension of time for appeal. Extension of time for late “receipt’ of order under V.R.A.P. 4 unavailable because notice was “received” when order arrived in mailbox, not when lawyer looked in the mailbox.

Coles v. Coles 2013 VT 36 (Burgess, J.)

Father challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen the time in which to file an appeal from a maintenance and child support order. He asserts that his motion was timely under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c). We affirm.

Counsel failed to prove that he did not receive notice of the court’s decision within twenty-one days, and thus failed to meet the threshold requirements for relief under V.R.A.P.4(c), which provides:

In any civil action, the superior . . . court, if it finds (a) that a party entitled to notice of the entry of a judgment or order did not receive such notice from the clerk or any party within 21 days of its entry and (b) that no party would be prejudiced, may, upon motion filed within 90 days of entry of the judgment or order or within 7 days of receipt of such notice, whichever is earlier, reopen the time for appeal for a period of 14 days from the date of entry of the order reopening the time for appeal. 

(emphasis added.)

The court’s docket entries indicate that an order was mailed to the parties on Monday, March 14, 2011, twenty days after entry of the order. Counsel was on vacation beginning Thursday, March 17, 2011,  and returned to work on Monday, April 4, 2011. He indicated that the mail arrived during his absence and the thirty-day appeal period had expired by the time he opened his mail. Counsel did not offer any evidence as to when the notice actually arrived in the mailbox. Instead, counsel argued only that he “received” the order when he opened his mail.

This approach would obviate our jurisdictional time limits, and it would not serve the strong interest in finality of judgments. The rule is not designed to allow the trial court to reopen the time for appeal because an attorney has not opened his or her mail. Instead we hold the “receipt” of notice contemplated under Rule 4(c) is receipt in a party’s mailbox.

The delay was not due to excusable neglect under Rule 4(d). Jurisdictional time limits do not and cannot depend on the vagaries of an attorney’s vacation schedule. Being away from delivered mail during vacation or otherwise failing to open mail, without more, is not excusable neglect. In re Town of Killington, 2003 VT 87A, ¶ 17, 176 Vt. 60, 838 A.2d 98 (internal office procedure breakdown not excusable neglect as a matter of law); Bergeron v. Boyle, 2003 VT 89, ¶ 22, 176 Vt. 78, 838 A.2d 918 (lawyer’s vacation and internal office procedure breakdown not excusable neglect); In re Lund, 2004 VT 55, ¶ 7, 177 Vt. 465, 857 A.2d 279 (mem.) (mistaken reading of rule not excusable neglect).

Restitution for Mutual mistake. Neither negligence nor imputed knowledge on part of plaintiff is a defense if there is an actual mistake and circumstances show unjust enrichment.

 Dover Corp. v. First Wisconsin Mortg. Trust, 139 Vt. 217, 425 A. 2d 97 (1980).

Plaintiff requested restitution based on a mutual mistake of fact relating to tax pro-rations at a closing. The trial court concluded that defendants had been unjustly enriched, and awarded $19,620.58 plus interest, reflecting the credits given defendants because of the mutual mistake as to the taxable year. Defendants appeal. We affirm.

Plaintiff, Dover Corporation, purchased the Mt. Snow ski area from defendants for a specific amount, subject to certain closing adjustments. The parties agreed to prorate the sewage taxes for the taxable year 1977 as of the date of closing. At the closing August 10, 1977,  defendants' agent represented that the sewage taxes had been paid in full for the fiscal year April 1, 1977, to March 31, 1978. Based on this understanding, the sewage taxes were prorated so that defendants received a credit for those taxes paid by them for the period from the date of closing to March 31, 1978.  However in fact the tax year was from January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977, and the taxes were paid only through June 30, 1977.

Defendants challenge the court's conclusion that plaintiff was mistaken as to the proper taxable year, because  Plaintiff had received a title certificate from a local attorney noting, correctly, that the taxable year for sewage assessments ran from January 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977. Defendants argue that the knowledge of plaintiff corporation controls the issue of mistake and that the court's finding that plaintiff had received the correct facts before the closing adjustment precludes a claim of mistake.

"[A] mistake is an unintentional act or omission arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition or misplaced confidence, and it exists when a person under some erroneous conviction of law or fact does or omits to do some act which, but for the erroneous conviction, he would not have done or omitted." Ward v. Lyman, 108 Vt. 464, 472, 188 A. 892, 896 (1937). See also Restatement of Restitution § 6 (1937). The knowledge which may have been imputed to plaintiff from plaintiff's attorney is not the issue. Certainly here we have an example of misplaced confidence in the mistaken opinion of defendants' agent. We find no error.

Defendants further argue that the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief despite plaintiff's lack of care and vigilance. But negligence of the party injured should not prevent a court from correcting a mutual mistake of fact. Ward v. Lyman, supra. See also Restatement of Restitution § 59 (1937). Whether a mistake is to be corrected depends upon the circumstances of the case. Here defendants were found to be unjustly enriched and plaintiff alone would suffer injury if relief were not granted. We think the case affords a solid ground for relief.

Judgment affirmed.

Damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress rejected in legal malpractice case, not because there was no physical injury and no zone of danger, but because the type of representation did not involve deeply personal and emotional issues

Vincent v. DeVries, 2013 VT 34 (Robinson, J.)


This case involves a jury award of emotional a legal malpractice action. Defendant appeals, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motions for judgment as a matter of law Defendant argues that emotional distress damages are not available in a legal malpractice We reverse.

Defendant admitted breach of a duty to plaintiff, and, in the trial-within-a-trial, plaintiff proved that but for the breach plaintiff would not have been ordered to convey his home to buyers in exchange for $52,000. The jury awarded awarding a total of $183,000 in damages comprising $103,000 in economic damages—representing what plaintiff paid to settle the underlying case and retain his home—and $80,000 in emotional distress damages.

The general rule precluding emotional distress damages in ordinary negligence claims without physical impact is longstanding, well-established, and almost universally embraced. However, modern courts have allowed recovery in cases of certain relationships or undertakings that are “fraught with the risk of emotional harm.” Restatement (Third) Torts: Physical & Emotional Harm § 47 cmt. b. In legal malpractice cases some courts have concluded that emotional distress damages are recoverable without physical impact case if the lawyer is contracted to perform services involving deeply emotional responses in the event of a breach. Most cases allowing damages for emotional injury in the absence of physical impact require that the emotional injury be serious. Restatement (Third) of Torts § 47 cmt. l

Assuming without deciding that Vermont law allows damages under certain circumstances for serious emotional distress in legal malpractice claims and that the evidence in this case could support a finding of sufficiently serious emotional anguish to support such a claim, we conclude that the subject of defendant’s representation of plaintiff was not of such a personal and emotional nature that it would support an exception to the general rule disallowing recovery of emotional distress damages in the absence of either physical impact or substantial bodily injury or sickness.

Plaintiff did not lose his home but, rather, faced a threatened loss of his home, which he ultimately avoided by settling the case. We do not mean to suggest that the anxiety associated with the threatened loss of one’s home cannot be profound. But in contrast, for example, to the loss of liberty or one’s child—for which there may be no adequate measure of pecuniary damages, and in connection with which serious emotional distress can be readily expected – this not the type of representation or deeply emotional harm for which modern courts allow compensation. We reverse the trial court’s award of emotional distress damages to plaintiff.