H&E Equipment Services, Inc. v. Cassani Electric, Inc. & Nicholas Cassani, 169 A.3d 1308

Background

H&E sought to domesticate and collect a 2001 Arizona default judgment against Nicholas Cassani in Vermont in 2015, attaching Arizona judgment-renewal filings from 2006 and 2011.
Arizona law permits renewal/revival of judgments by filing a judgment renewal affidavit; H&E twice renewed its Arizona judgment, most recently in 2011.
Cassani moved to dismiss under Vermont’s statute of limitations for actions on judgments, 12 V.S.A. § 506, arguing the eight-year period ran from the original 2001 judgment.
Cassani also asserted he was never personally served in the Arizona action and submitted a sworn affidavit denying service; he sought to create a factual dispute to resist enforcement.
The Vermont trial court initially granted summary judgment to H&E, set it aside to allow Cassani time to produce Arizona records, gave him 60 days, he produced nothing, and the court renewed summary judgment for H&E.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed: (1) § 506’s limitations period runs from the date of a renewed judgment where applicable, so H&E’s 2011 renewal made the 2015 action timely; and (2) Cassani failed to rebut the presumption of valid service sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 506 bars H&E’s 2015 action to enforce the Arizona judgment	H&E: § 506 allows actions on renewed judgments; the 2011 renewal restarts the limitations period so the 2015 suit is timely	Cassani: limitations run from the original 2001 judgment, so the 2015 action is time-barred	Held: § 506 applies to renewed judgments; the 2011 renewal controls and the action is timely
Whether the Vermont court must refuse full faith and credit because Arizona lacked personal jurisdiction	H&E: Arizona judgment recites proper service; full faith and credit therefore presumptively applies absent a substantial showing to the contrary	Cassani: his sworn affidavit that he was not served creates a genuine issue of material fact defeating summary judgment	Held: Cassani’s bare affidavit was insufficient to overcome the presumption of valid service; summary judgment proper
Whether Cassani’s failure to produce Arizona court records after court opportunity prevents his challenge	H&E: Cassani was given time and instruction to produce supporting evidence and failed to do so	Cassani: (argued) needed more time/that his affidavit should suffice	Held: Trial court properly required corroborating evidence and could grant judgment after Cassani produced nothing
Whether Vermont must refuse to enforce a foreign renewal obtained under sister-state law because forum’s own revival rules differ	H&E: Full Faith and Credit requires enforcement of valid sister-state revivals; forum policy cannot defeat a foreign revival	Cassani: (argued) implicit objection that revival must occur under Vermont law to be enforceable	Held: Full Faith and Credit requires recognition of revived sister-state judgments unless jurisdictional defect shown

Key Cases Cited

Wursthaus, Inc. v. Cerreta, 149 Vt. 54, 539 A.2d 534 (Vt. 1987) (sister-state judgment entitled to full faith and credit absent showing court lacked jurisdiction or deprived defendant of opportunity to be heard)
Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1951) (burden of undermining sister-state decree rests heavily upon assailant)
Watkins v. Conway, 385 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1966) (limitations period runs from latest revival of foreign judgment)
Union Nat’l Bank of Wichita v. Lamb, 337 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1949) (forum must give full faith and credit to revived sister-state judgments unless attack is on rendering court’s jurisdiction)
Ayer v. Hemingway, 193 Vt. 610, 73 A.3d 673 (Vt. 2013) (post-judgment orders that merely adjust payment do not restart § 506 limitations; renewal requires new independent action)
Nelson v. Russo, 184 Vt. 550, 956 A.2d 1117 (Vt. 2008) (statutory framework for renewing Vermont judgments requires independent action)
Lakeside Equip. Corp. v. Town of Chester, 173 Vt. 317, 795 A.2d 1174 (Vt. 2002) (defendant who makes no appearance may still defeat enforcement of a default judgment by showing lack of personal jurisdiction)
In re Hanrahan’s Will, 109 Vt. 108, 194 A. 471 (Vt. 1937) (judgment rendered without notice or appearance is void)