Licursi v. Sweeney (Vt. 1991)
Citation: 157 Vt. 599, 603 A.2d 342 (1991) · Court: Vermont Supreme Court · Decided: Nov. 1, 1991 · Opinion: Gibson, J.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/vt/157/cases/0599-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Case page. Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-10-16. Source: Caselaw Access Project scan of Vermont Reports (https://static.case.law/vt/157/cases/0599-01.json), retrieved 2026-10-16.
Facts
Plaintiff held a USD 3,502.59 judgment for fees and costs from a 1985 foreclosure. In 1990 she served post-judgment trustee process on Home Insurance Company, which held USD 3,500 belonging to defendant. Defendant claimed exemptions under 12 V.S.A. § 2740. The trial court refused the § 2740(7) USD 400 wildcard because he had claimed it in unrelated Washington County litigation, refused the up-to-USD 7,000 “unused” amount because none of the listed items had been attached, and rejected the § 2740(15) bank-deposit exemption.
Holding
Affirmed in part, reversed in part. (1) “[A] judgment debtor may claim his exemption as against successive executions but may not have exempt funds in his possession at any one time in excess of his exemption,” so the USD 400 wildcard was available again. (2) The § 2740(7) additional amount turns on whether the listed exemptions are “unused” — including because the debtor owns no property in those categories — not on whether the attachment covered those items. (3) Funds held by an insurer under its contract with a third party are not “bank deposits or deposit accounts” under § 2740(15).
Reasoning
The purpose of § 2740 is “to afford debtors protection from the loss of property specified by the Legislature as essential to living and working”; “It would make little sense to allow specific exemptions against only the first attaching creditor.” Nor is the wildcard conditioned on the debtor inventorying out-of-state property.
Practical impact
In Vermont the wildcard can shield up to USD 7,400 of otherwise reachable property (USD 400 plus up to USD 7,000 of unused amounts) against each new execution, which limits what an execution sale or trustee process can reach. Creditors and buyers should expect exemption claims to be renewed creditor by creditor.
Good-law status
No citator check run this session (needs_verification). The § 2740(7) and (15) amounts quoted in the opinion match the text retrieved 2026-10-16.