Sulaiman J. Jadallah v. Town of Fairfax, Stacy Wells, Gabriel Handy and Sidon Pantry, LLC
186 A.3d 1111
Vt.2018Background
- Jadallah owned and operated a restaurant; Handy loaned him money in 2003 and 2007, each loan secured by quitclaim deeds (2003 Deed, 2007 Deed). The 2007 Deed permitted recording after default following notice and cure period.
- Jadallah defaulted while incarcerated; Handy recorded the 2007 Deed in April 2008, paid transfer taxes, and later cleared mortgages. Jadallah disputed the deed as fraudulent and later executed a 2014 easement that clouded title.
- Jadallah sued Handy, Sidon Pantry, the Town of Fairfax, and Stacy Wells in October 2014 asserting claims including slander of title, negligence, fraud, deceptive practices, trespass, conversion, breach of contract (against Handy/Sidon), and intentional interference (against Town/Wells).
- Jadallah and Handy/Sidon settled in March 2015: Jadallah executed a quitclaim deed releasing any interest (2015 Deed), dismissed claims among them, and reserved claims against Town/Wells. All had counsel and negotiated the documents; a lease with repurchase terms accompanied the settlement.
- In March 2016 Jadallah moved to vacate/reform the 2015 settlement deed under V.R.C.P. 60, alleging Handy’s fraud in drafting language affirming the 2007 Deed. The Town/Wells moved for summary judgment arguing statute of limitations and lack of causation/evidence.
- The trial court treated the Rule 60 filing as a request to revise an interlocutory order under V.R.C.P. 54(b), denied relief (no injustice requiring reopening), and granted Town/Wells summary judgment because Jadallah’s claims accrued no later than May 2008 and thus were time-barred by the six-year limitations period; no evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60 relief was available to vacate/reform the 2015 settlement deed | Jadallah: deed language was procured by Handy’s fraud; court should reform deed/remove affirmation of 2007 Deed | Handy/Sidon & court: no final judgment on all parties; relief should be sought under V.R.C.P. 54(b) and is not warranted | Court: treated motion as a V.R.C.P. 54(b) revision request and denied it as justice did not require reopening; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Jadallah’s claims against Town/Wells are barred by the statute of limitations | Jadallah: was not on notice of the 2007 Deed until 2011; incarceration or fraudulent concealment tolls limitations | Town/Wells: inquiry notice arose by April/May 2008; six-year limitations bars claims filed Oct 2014 | Court: accrual at latest May 2008 (inquiry notice); six-year limitations expired by May 2014; claims time-barred |
| Whether incarceration or alleged post-accrual concealment tolls limitations | Jadallah: imprisonment and fraudulent concealment should toll the limitations period | Town/Wells: imprisonment occurred after accrual; alleged fraud occurred after accrual and did not prevent discovery | Court: imprisonment occurred after accrual so § 551 inapplicable; alleged concealment occurred after accrual so tolling under § 555 not available |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the motions | Jadallah: requested hearing to present evidence and testimony | Town/Wells: record supported disposition on summary judgment and revision motion; no genuine factual dispute shown | Court: no hearing required where Jadallah offered unsupported factual assertions without record citations; exercise of discretion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Putney Sch., Inc. v. Schaaf, 599 A.2d 322 (Vt. 1991) (V.R.C.P. 54(b) revision power limited to when justice requires)
- Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. of Am. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943) (equitable limits on reopening interlocutory matters)
- Remes v. Nordic Grp., Inc., 726 A.2d 77 (Vt. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discretionary rulings)
- Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 882 A.2d 1177 (Vt. 2005) (standard of review on summary judgment)
- King v. Gorczyk, 825 A.2d 16 (Vt. 2003) (view facts and inferences for nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Clayton v. Unsworth, 8 A.3d 1066 (Vt. 2010) (opponent must cite specific facts in record to avoid summary judgment)
- Agency of Nat. Res. v. Towns, 724 A.2d 1022 (Vt. 1998) (accrual and inquiry notice principles)
- Abajian v. TruexCullins, Inc., 176 A.3d 534 (Vt. 2017) (inquiry notice starts statute of limitations when reasonable investigation would follow)
- Sandgate Sch. Dist. v. Cate, 883 A.2d 774 (Vt. 2005) (court may deny hearing when explanations are unreasonable)
- Blake v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 904 A.2d 1071 (Vt. 2006) (Rule 78 and summary disposition without oral argument)
- Alexander v. Dupuis, 435 A.2d 693 (Vt. 1981) (no due process violation when motion facts, if proved, warrant denial)