Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dusablon, 122 A.3d 1202

Horizon Heights Condominium Association (Association) bills unit owners monthly assessments under Vermont’s Common Interest Ownership Act and its governing documents.
Citimortgage foreclosed on the Dusablons’ unit in 2010; the Association filed a cross-claim to foreclose its lien for unpaid assessments.
The parties stipulated to an accounting reflecting amounts owed through early January 2012; the court incorporated that stipulated accounting into a February 15, 2013 foreclosure decree (adopting the schedule through January 1/8, 2012) and set a redemption amount, which the Dusablons paid in April 2013.
After redeeming, the Association billed the Dusablons for assessments that accrued after the accounting cutoff date; the Dusablons refused and moved to enforce the foreclosure judgment as covering those later assessments.
The trial court ruled the February 15, 2013 decree precluded the Association from pursuing assessments arising before that date but not after; the court’s interpretation was appealed.
The Vermont Supreme Court held the decree only covered assessments through the stated accounting date (January 1/8, 2012), and res judicata did not bar the Association from seeking assessments that accrued after that date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Association)	Defendant's Argument (Dusablons)	Held
Whether the February 15, 2013 foreclosure decree bars collection of assessments that accrued after the accounting cutoff date stated in the stipulation	The decree resolved the Association’s lien and thus precludes any further collection for the period up to the decree date	The decree should be interpreted to include assessments through February 2013 (date of decree)	Reversed trial court: decree only covers assessments through the explicit accounting date (Jan. 1/8, 2012); later assessments are not barred
Whether res judicata (claim preclusion) prevents the Association from pursuing assessments that accrued after the accounting date	Res judicata bars relitigation and thus bars collection of the billed amounts	The Association never litigated post-accounting assessments, so res judicata does not apply	Res judicata does not bar recovery because those assessments were not part of the prior litigation or judgment
Proper characterization of the Dusablons’ motion (enforcement vs. clarification/modification) and appropriate procedural remedy	The Dusablons’ motion sought enforcement of the judgment	The motion functioned as a request to clarify an interlocutory order or for injunctive/declaratory relief; Rule 60 is inapplicable	The motion was more properly a request to clarify an interlocutory order; Rule 60 (final-judgment relief) did not apply

(none with official reporter citations in the opinion)