ncfcu v anderson

Termont 	Superior 	Court
Filed 	07/01/26
Washington 	Unit
CIVIL 	DIVISION
Case 	No. 	24-CV-00765
VERMONT 	SUPERIOR 	COURT
Washington 	Unit
65 	State 	Street
Montpelier 	VT 	05602
802-828-2091
www.vermontjudiciary.org
NorthCountry 	Federal 	Credit 	Union 	v. 	Glenn 	Andersen
ENTRY 	REGARDING 	MOTION
Title: 	Document(s) 	Filed; 	Document(s) 	Filed; 	Memorandum 	in 	Opposition; 	Motion 	for
Oral 	Argument 	Def's 	Objection 	to 	Confirmation 	of Foreclosure 	Sale, 	Request 	for 	Evidentiary
Hearing, 	Limited 	Discovery, 	and 	Status 	Quo 	Relief; 	Notice 	Regarding 	Current 	Representation
Status; 	to 	Confirmation 	of Foreclosure 	Sale; 	(Evidentiary 	Hearing) 	(Motion: 	; 	; 	; 	9)
Filer: 	Glenn 	C 	Andersen; 	Glenn 	C 	Andersen; 	Glenn 	C 	Andersen; 	Glenn 	C 	Andersen
Filed 	Date: 	June 	25, 	2026; 	June 	25, 	2026; 	June 	29, 	2026; 	June 	29, 	2026
The 	motions 	are 	DENIED.
Defendant 	Glenn 	Anderson 	has 	filed 	several 	overlapping 	motions 	opposing 	the 	proposed
confirmation 	of a judicial 	foreclosure 	sale 	conducted 	on 	June 	23, 	2026 	by 	Plaintiff North
Country 	Federal 	Credit 	Union 	following 	both 	an 	entry 	ofjudgment 	for 	foreclosure 	and 	the 	non-
redemption 	of the 	premises.
Defendant's 	motions 	are 	Denied 	for 	three 	reasons:
First, 	the 	Court 	has 	not 	granted 	any 	motion 	for 	Defendant 	to 	be 	self-represented. 	While
the 	Court 	now 	has 	a 	motion from 	Defendant's 	counsel 	to 	withdraw 	and 	to 	allow 	Defendant 	to
represent 	himself, 	the 	Court 	must 	set 	this 	for 	a 	hearing 	given 	the 	fact 	that 	this 	motion 	was 	filed 	at
the 	end 	of the 	foreclosure 	process, 	and 	the 	Court 	must 	consider 	whether 	granting 	such 	a 	motion
is 	consistent 	with 	the 	good 	cause 	standards 	governing 	late 	hour 	withdrawals. 	V.R.C.P. 	79.1(f).
Until 	this 	motion 	is 	reviewed 	and 	granted, 	the 	Court 	will 	not 	accept 	filings 	from 	Defendant 	that
are 	not 	signed 	by 	counsel. 	V.R.C.P. 	11(a).
Second, 	Defendant's 	motions 	are 	premature. 	Plaintiff has 	not 	filed 	a 	motion 	for
confirmation, 	and 	the 	Court 	will 	not entertain 	premature 	opposition, 	which 	require 	Plaintiff to
respond 	to 	issues 	or 	arguments 	that 	may 	or 	may 	not 	be 	applicable. 	It 	is 	Plaintiff's 	prerogative 	to
file 	raa 	motion 	for 	confirmation 	and 	establish 	that 	it 	has 	met 	the 	technical 	requirements 	of 	12
V.S.A. 	§§ 	4952 	and 	4953. 	Until 	such 	a 	motion 	is 	filed, 	any 	opposition 	is 	unripe.
Third, 	it 	is 	not 	clear 	that 	Defendant 	is 	entitled 	to 	evidentiary 	or 	discovery 	process 	in 	the
review 	of a judicial 	sale. 	The 	purpose 	of a 	judicial 	sale 	is 	to 	ensure 	that 	it 	was 	conducted 	in
accordance 	with 	the 	provisions 	for 	a judicial 	sale. 	In 	this 	respect, 	the 	judicial 	sale 	process 	is 	a
court's 	sale. 	It 	is 	not 	a 	plaintiff's 	sale 	that 	is 	the 	plaintiff does 	not 	have 	free 	reign 	to 	conduct
the 	sale 	in 	any 	manner 	that 	it 	may 	see 	fit 	but 	it 	is 	not 	a 	defendant's 	sale 	either. 	See 	Bank 	of
New 	York 	Mellon 	v. 	Campbell, 	Dckts. 	No. 	229-4-10 	Wrev, 	78-2-12 	Wrev, 	568-10-11 	Wrev, 	319-

5-12 Wrcv, available at 2013 WL 6631044, at *6 (Dec. 2, 2013) (Teachout, J.) (discussing how
judicial sales are controlled and over seen by the courts).
The Court’s overarching purpose in such supervision is to ensure fairness and equity in
the process, not necessarily the outcome. “Confirmation of a foreclosure sale is a discretionary
judicial action, the purpose of which is to ensure fairness in the judicial process.” HSBC Bank
USA N.A. v. McAllister, 2018 VT 9, ¶ 7, 206 Vt. 445 (citing 12 V.S.A. § 4954(a)); see also
Reporter's Notes–1982 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 80.1 (“A foreclosure action, even when by sale,
remains an equity action, and the court has the power to refuse to confirm a sale where the result
would be inequitable.”).
Judicial sales cannot guarantee outcomes or prices. Even if Plaintiff is the sole bidder,
there are limits to what it is obligated to pay. This is further modified by whether Plaintiff does
or does not seek a deficiency judgment as it is more difficult to find a sale outcome unfair if
Plaintiff does not carry liability for any deficiency. In addition, the Court notes that there is a
strong legislative policy favoring finality in foreclosure proceedings and disfavoring the type of
endless challenges that can potentially be raised after a judgment for foreclosure is entered. TBF
Fin., LLC v. Gregoire, 2015 VT 36 ¶ 20.
Before the Court can entertain any motions for discovery, evidentiary hearings, or even
oral argument, the Court will need to understand the basis of Defendant’s equitable basis for
objecting to the judicial sale, its process, and Plaintiff’s expected motion for confirmation. For
example, Defendant notes that he operates a hospitality business that has confirmed bookings for
the future. Part of his motion seeks an indefinite stay to allow him to continue his business on
the property. Given that Defendant’s interests in the property have been foreclosed and
unredeemed and given that the property has now been the subject of a judicial sale, it is difficult
to understand why the termination of Defendant’s remaining interest in the property is
inequitable. Defendant cites, in part, to a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan, but this Court is not
expected to stay bankruptcy proceedings if the Bankruptcy Court has not exercised its
jurisdiction, and the denial of such a stay by the Bankruptcy Court does not, in and of itself,
create an inequity.
For these reasons, Defendant’s various objections and motions to stay confirmation
proceedings are Denied.
So Ordered.
Electronically signed on 6/30/2026 6:40 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)
__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge