Farm Credit East v. Gemmel

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 04/28/26
Washington Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Case No. 26-CV-00437
65 State Street
Montpelier VT 05602
802-828-2091
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Farm Credit East, ACA v. Rubi Gemmell et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion to Reconsider Court's Order Regarding Foreclosure Mediation (Motion:
3)
Filer: Madison P. Prokott
Filed Date: March 27, 2026

The motion is GRANTED.

The present motion poses a unique dilemma for the Court. Defendant in this matter has
sought an order mandating Foreclosure Mediation. Plaintiff has demonstrated, and Defendants
concede that the triggers for such a mediation referral are not present here. See 12 V.S.A. §
4631(b) (outlining the provisions needed to trigger foreclosure mediation).

Breaking the parties' positions down further, Plaintiff argues that it is not obligated to
conduct such mediation as it is not subject to any government loss mitigation programs, and it
has already conducted extensive loss mitigation conversations with Defendant prior to initiating
the present action. 12 V.S.A. § 4631(b). Defendant does not dispute these representations, but
she contends that her situation has changed. She has poured tens of thousands of dollars into the
property, and she is now in a different financial position from when the parties first negotiated.

Foreclosures are odd Chimeras. They are creatures of law as demonstrated in the
foreclosure statutes of Title 12, the secured transactions provisions of Title 9A, and contract law.
They are also beasts of equity, and trial courts engaged in such proceedings have long been
instructed to consider the equities of the situation. Cenlar FSB v. Malenfant, 2016 VT 93, at J
19, n.5. As Cenlar instructs, however, the Court is to use equitable considerations for the
equitable parts of the case and legal principles for the legal portions.

In this case, foreclosure mediation is a statutory-created and -driven practice. It was
enacted for a specific purpose, which notwithstanding its name, is less of traditional shuttle
negotiation, and is more focused on ensuring that lenders consider loss mitigation and
reinstatement options before foreclosing. 12 V.S.A. § 4632. In this case, the Court finds little
compelling basis to compel the parties to follow this statutory framework. Plaintiff does not
have access to the government-sponsored programs to be utilized, and there is evidence that
remediation and work-out options have already been discussed at length. For these reasons, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause not to order foreclosure mediation, and the
Court vacates its earlier order.
At the same time, Defendant’s point is that her situation has changed, and there is new
information to share. Given that foreclosure is an equitable remedy, it would seem inappropriate
to simply shuffle Defendant to the court and ignore the new information that could alter the
trajectory of the remedy. The Court, in this respect, is cognizant that Plaintiff ultimately wants
to secure payment, and Defendant wants to save her ownership. If there is information that could
allow this to happen, then it would seem in both parties’ interest in exchanging this information.

To that end, the Court directs counsel for both parties to conduct at least two
consultations, either in-person or by telephone/zoom where they can review the new information
and share responses from their respective clients. The Court will give the parties 20 days to have
these sessions. The Court will schedule a status conference at the end of this 20-day period, and
the parties can report either progress or timeline for next steps under V.R.C.P. 80.1.

The Court’s prior Order staying the matter and referring the parties to Foreclosure
Mediation is Vacated and of no further effect.

So Ordered.

Electronically signed on 4/27/2026 11:56 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________
Daniel P. Richardson
Superior Court Judge