195 A.3d 379
Vt.2018Background
- In Dec. 2006 DiStefano signed a $16,500 promissory note payable to Clark upon sixty days’ written demand; Clark sent written demand in Apr/May 2007 but was not paid.
- Clark sued in Apr. 2017, about ten years after his written demand; parties disputed whether the note was witnessed (treated as witnessed for Clark at summary judgment review).
- Clark argued the 14-year limitations period for witnessed promissory notes (12 V.S.A. § 508) governed; he moved for summary judgment.
- DiStefano argued the UCC six-year limitations period for demand notes (9A V.S.A. § 3-118(b)) controlled and moved for summary judgment, citing 12 V.S.A. § 464 (chapter 23 provisions do not affect actions specially limited by law).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to DiStefano on statute-of-limitations grounds; Clark appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs a witnessed promissory demand note: 14-year § 508 (Title 12, Ch. 23) or 6-year UCC § 3-118(b)? | Clark: § 508 applies to witnessed notes; § 3-118(b) should not displace § 508 for witnessed notes — they can be harmonized. | DiStefano: § 3-118(b) governs demand notes; § 464 removes Chapter 23 limits when another statute "specially" limits the action, so UCC six-year period controls. | The six-year limitations period in 9A V.S.A. § 3-118(b) applies; § 464 displaces the Chapter 23 limitation, so summary judgment for DiStefano is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mier v. Boyer, 124 Vt. 12 (Vt. 1963) (applied § 464 to favor a statute of limitations outside Title 12, Chapter 23 over a general Chapter 23 tolling provision)
- Parent v. Beeman, 138 Vt. 607 (Vt. 1980) (explained § 464 prevents Chapter 23 tolling provisions from applying to causes of action specially limited by other statutes)
- Pike v. Chuck’s Willoughby Pub., Inc., 180 Vt. 25 (Vt. 2006) (followed Parent and held a statutory limitations period outside Chapter 23 prevails over Chapter 23 tolling)
- In re Carter, 176 Vt. 322 (Vt. 2004) (summary-judgment standard cited on appeal)