Angela Blake v. Damon Petrie, 245 A.3d 768

Angela Blake and Damon Petrie divorced in 2007; the final order incorporated a marital settlement requiring Petrie to pay $41,000 by installments (assumed complete by April 2011).
Blake filed a contempt/enforcement motion in June 2011 alleging unpaid property‑settlement installments; the family division entered a judgment on October 4, 2011 for $17,500 plus interest and reserved attorney’s fees.
In August 2019 Blake moved in the original 2006 divorce case to enforce the October 2011 judgment; she alleged no post‑2011 payments and sought unpaid balance, interest, and fees.
Petrie moved to dismiss in October 2019, arguing 12 V.S.A. § 506 (which requires a “new and independent action” to renew a judgment within eight years) barred Blake’s enforcement effort because she did not file a separate renewal action.
The family division denied dismissal, treating the family‑division enforcement motion (V.R.F.P. 4.2) as sufficient to renew the judgment; the Supreme Court granted interlocutory review.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed: a motion to enforce in the family division is not a “new and independent action” under § 506, so Blake’s 2019 motion did not renew the judgment and the enforcement effort was time‑barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a post‑judgment enforcement motion in the family division satisfies 12 V.S.A. § 506’s requirement that renewal be by a “new and independent action”	Blake: the 2019 enforcement motion in the existing divorce case functioned as a new action and timely renewed the 2011 judgment	Petrie: § 506 requires a separate complaint‑initiated action; a motion in the original divorce case cannot renew the judgment	Court: A family‑division enforcement motion does not satisfy § 506; renewal requires a separate new and independent action
Whether Vermont Rule for Family Proceedings 4.2 displaces or satisfies § 506 renewal requirements	Blake: Rule 4.2’s service and hearing procedures make the enforcement motion equivalent to a new action for renewal purposes	Petrie: Rule 4.2 governs post‑judgment procedure but does not supplant the statutory renewal requirement in § 506	Court: V.R.F.P. 4.2 governs enforcement procedure but does not override § 506; it cannot be used to renew a judgment
Which judgment date controls for purposes of § 506 (original 2007 or the 2011 enforcement judgment)	Blake: the October 2011 judgment restarted the limitations period	Petrie: either the 2007 judgment controls or the 2011 judgment was not timely renewed	Court: did not decide which judgment would control; assumed arguendo 2011 might control but held renewal still required and was not done, so enforcement is time‑barred

Nelson v. Russo, 956 A.2d 1117 (Vt. 2008) (holding renewal requires a new independent action—motion in the original case insufficient)
Ayer v. Hemingway, 73 A.3d 673 (Vt. 2013) (reaffirming that an independent action, not a motion or analogous filing, is required to renew a judgment)
H&E Equip. Servs., Inc. v. Cassani Elec., Inc., 169 A.3d 1308 (Vt. 2017) (holding the rendition date of a renewed judgment governs the limitations period)
Koerber v. Middlesex Coll., 383 A.2d 1054 (Vt. 1978) (explaining an action on a judgment is a new and independent action that restarts the limitations period)
Flex‑A‑Seal, Inc. v. Safford, 117 A.3d 823 (Vt. 2015) (holding that an intervening stipulated order did not reset the limitations clock and a renewal action was time‑barred)
Aither v. Estate of Aither, 913 A.2d 376 (Vt. 2006) (describing the distinction between enforcement of an existing order and bringing an action on a judgment)