342 A.3d 941
Vt.2025Background
- Plaintiff Veljovic alleged that a TD Bank employee, Cavka, negligently notarized a document with a forged signature, which her ex-husband used to secure a Serbian divorce decree granting him marital property previously awarded to her by a Vermont decree.
- Veljovic admitted she never met Cavka and was not a TD Bank accountholder at the time of the notarization.
- TD Bank moved to dismiss, arguing claims were barred by the economic-loss rule and lack of duty.
- The trial court dismissed the claims, finding the plaintiff sought only economic losses and failed to allege a special relationship with defendants.
- Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and to amend her complaint (to add she was a TD account holder) were denied as futile; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic-loss rule bars recovery for purely economic losses in tort | Plaintiff claimed exceptions apply due to notarial professional/service relationship | Defendants argued no special relationship or independent duty; rule applies | Affirmed: No exception applies; claims barred |
| Existence of a special/professional relationship | Claimed notary’s public status and bank account-holder status created a special relationship | Argued plaintiff never met Cavka, was not present at notarization, and had no reliance or contract with bank for notary services | Affirmed: No close or special relationship alleged |
| Notary public owes duty to persons whose signature is notarized or to public generally | Plaintiff argued notary public status alone creates duty to all whose signatures notarized | Defendants argued any applicable argument was not preserved for appeal and not supported by Vermont law | Affirmed: Argument not preserved and unsupported |
| Denial of post-judgment motion to amend complaint | Sought to add bank account-holder status to show relationship | Amendments would be futile; no relation to tort duty for notarial services | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion, amendment futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Gus’ Catering, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys., 171 Vt. 556 (holds no duty to avoid intangible economic loss absent physical harm)
- Springfield Hydroelectric Co. v. Copp, 172 Vt. 311 (defines economic loss as damages other than physical harm; distinguishes tort from contract duties)
- Long Trail House Condo. Ass’n v. Engelberth Const., Inc., 192 Vt. 322 (explains the economic-loss rule and special professional relationship exception)
- EBWS, LLC v. Britly Corp., 181 Vt. 513 (outlines limited circumstances for economic loss recovery in negligence for breach of professional duty)
- Birchwood Land Co. v. Krizan, 198 Vt. 420 (standards for granting motions to dismiss)
- Stowe Aviation, LLC v. Agency of Com. & Cmty. Dev., 219 Vt. 70 (requirements for amending a complaint post-judgment)