Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC
| Docket Number | 72-4-20 Ancv |
| Decision Date | 14 November 2023 |
| Parties | Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC |
| Court | Superior Court of Vermont |
Title Motion to Stay Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Contempt (Motion: 25)
Filed Date: October 26, 2023
ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Mary Miles Teachout Superior Judge (Ret.), Specially Assigned
The motion is DENIED.
This is a ruling on the request in the document filed by Defendant on October 26, 2023 which the court has deemed is a Motion to Stay the evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin December 11 2023 on Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt. The court has considered the motion, the opposition, and the reply. The record shows the following:
October 13, 2023: Defendant appealed the denial of the Defendant's Motion for Relief from Judgment to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt remained scheduled for evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff filed a Legal Memorandum related to its Motion for Contempt stating the position that the filing of the appeal "has no effect on the Court's jurisdiction with respect to the contempt proceeding, which should proceed without delay."
October 26, 2023: Defendant filed an "Opposition to Continuing Jurisdiction and Reply to Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion to Find Defendant in Contempt and Enforce August 15, 2022 Judgment." In this filing, Defendant argued that the court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the Contempt motion (which remained scheduled) and requested that the court "deny Plaintiffs request to proceed with the contempt proceeding until the appellate court properly decides the 60b appeal and jurisdiction returns to the Superior Court."
Both of these documents were labeled legal memoranda. There was no pending motion regarding proceeding with or staying the evidentiary hearing on the Motion for Contempt, and it remained scheduled. The Defendant's memorandum included the request to cancel the scheduled hearing on the Motion for Contempt.
The court determined in a ruling of October 30, 2023 that the pertinent authority on the issue of jurisdiction concerning action on injunctive relief when an appeal is pending is in Rule 8 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure: "Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal." It provides:
Section (a)(2) provides for a motion to be filed in the Supreme Court if the superior court denies the motion or under other specified circumstances.
Although Defendant's legal memorandum was not filed as a motion, the court treated it as a Motion to Stay because it requested the specific relief from the court of a stay of the scheduled hearing on enforcement of an injunction and provided the legal argument on which it relied.[1] The court provided for shortened deadlines for response and reply so that the issue could be resolved prior to the scheduled hearing dates.
Defendant argues that the trial court should not hear a motion for contempt of a judgment that may be vacated or altered as a result of its current appeal, and thus should not hear the motion during the pendency of the appeal. However, Rule 8 of the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure inherently indicates a "default" expectation that the hearing would be held unless a judge grants a motion to stay. The nature of injunctive relief often involves stopping ongoing harm although not always. The Reporter's Notes show that this rule has been in effect since the Rules were first promulgated, and it provides a mechanism for "relief' from what would otherwise occur, which would be proceedings to obtain or...
To continue reading
Request your trial