Letourneau v. Hickey
Vermont Supreme Court
807 A.2d 437 (2002)
After a dispute over a disputed property line was resolved in favor of neighboring landowners the Judds (defendants), represented against the Letourneaus (plaintiffs) whose attorney was Charles Hickey (defendant), the Letourneaus failed to pay Hickey and evaded service when he brought a collection action against them, never filing a responsive pleading, resulting in a default judgment against them in October 1999. In February 2001, the Letourneaus sued Hickey for malpractice and sued the Judds for slander over trial testimony that their maple syrup tasted like tires, and also sought relief from the earlier default judgment. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment, holding the malpractice claim was waived as an unasserted compulsory counterclaim in the earlier collection suit, that the alleged slander was privileged litigation testimony with no proven harm, and dismissing the relief motion without a hearing. The Letourneaus appealed.
Whether the entry of a default judgment relieves the defendant of an obligation to have asserted a compulsory counterclaim in the action that led to default, where the defendant could have asserted the counterclaim but chose not to file a responsive pleading.