Forrett v. Stone

• Decision Date: 19 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2020-169,2020-169
• Citation: 2021 VT 17
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Meghan Forrett v. Orion Stone

2021 VT 17

Meghan Forrett v. Orion Stone

No. 2020-169

Supreme Court of Vermont

November Term, 2020

March 19, 2021

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801, of any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

On Appeal from Superior Court, Windham Unit, Family Division

John R. Treadwell, J.

Maguire Curran, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Rogers of Costello, Valente & Gentry, P.C., Brattleboro, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ.

¶ 1. PER CURIAM. Defendant Orion Stone appeals from the trial court's order extending a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order against him. He argues that the plain language of 15 V.S.A. § 1103(e) required plaintiff Meghan Forrett to seek her extension before the initial order expired and because she failed to do so, the court lacked jurisdiction over her request. Defendant maintains that plaintiff's belated request cannot be considered "excusable neglect" under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Defendant further argues that the court was required and failed to make findings that he abused plaintiff and that there was a danger of further abuse. We construe § 1103(e) to allow plaintiff's filing here; however, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision to extend the RFA order. Because we conclude that the hearing did not provide plaintiff sufficient opportunity to present relevant evidence, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings.

¶ 2. Plaintiff sought an RFA order against defendant in March 2019. She alleged that at the time, she and defendant were high school students and former romantic partners. Plaintiff had a new boyfriend, and she alleged that defendant was showing up unexpectedly in places that she frequented, making her feel scared and anxious. She alleged that she observed defendant one evening, driving in reverse in front of her new boyfriend's driveway. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant had sexually assaulted her and otherwise acted in ways that frightened her. She stated that defendant repeatedly threatened to kill himself if she broke up with him.

¶ 3. The court issued a temporary RFA order, finding that defendant abused plaintiff by placing her in fear of serious, imminent physical harm, stalking her, and sexually assaulting her, and that there was an immediate danger of further abuse. Following a hearing, the court issued a final RFA order effective through April 3, 2020. The parties stipulated to waive findings. Defendant was ordered, among other things, to refrain from committing further acts of abuse and to stay 300 feet away from plaintiff.

¶ 4. On Tuesday, April 7, 2020, plaintiff moved to extend the RFA order for another year. She asked the court to excuse her delayed filing, explaining that she had not been able to locate an address for defendant sooner. Plaintiff stated that defendant had violated the RFA and that she remained afraid of him.

¶ 5. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's request, arguing that the RFA order had expired and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to extend it. He cited 15 V.S.A. § 1103(e), which provides that "[r]elief shall be granted for a fixed period, at the expiration of which time the court may extend any order, upon motion of the plaintiff, for such additional time as it deems necessary to protect the plaintiff . . . from abuse." Defendant argued that thewords "at the expiration of" required plaintiff to file her request for an extension before the most recent RFA order expired. He further argued that plaintiff's inability to serve him did not excuse her belated filing.

¶ 6. At a hearing on the motions, plaintiff testified that she had been told that she needed defendant's address to file for an extension and that she had been trying to find his address since February 2020.¹ Plaintiff cited to her affidavit, which described the numerous ways in which she tried to find him. Once she discovered defendant was back in Vermont, plaintiff filed her request.

¶ 7. With respect to the merits, plaintiff stated that she wanted the order extended because defendant had engaged in conduct that violated the temporary and final RFA orders despite knowing his behavior was prohibited. Plaintiff testified that, on the day she obtained the temporary RFA order, she was parked in a school lot facing the front of the school. Defendant raced through the parking lot and sped up to "jump" a speed bump right in front of her. Plaintiff testified that defendant's behavior made her fear for her safety given defendant's history of violence. Plaintiff stated that several months later she saw defendant walking toward a park where she was playing softball. Defendant saw plaintiff, glared at her, and continued to walk into the park where he got into his friend's truck. Plaintiff's teammates told defendant that he needed to leave, which he did. This incident also made plaintiff fear for her safety.

¶ 8. Plaintiff represented herself in the hearing on her motion to extend the order; her testimony consisted primarily of responding to questions from the bench. The court did not ask plaintiff about the circumstances leading to the initial RFA order or defendant's alleged history of violence that established the context for the two incidents plaintiff described.

¶ 9. Significantly, in response to a question from defendant, the court indicated that testimony related to plaintiff's allegations underlying the initial RFA order would not be relevant or persuasive in deciding whether to grant an extension. The court indicated that to the extent that defendant sought to present such evidence, the request would be denied.

¶ 10. At the close of the hearing, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. It concluded that plaintiff demonstrated excusable neglect under V.R.C.P. 6(b)(1)(B) for her belated filing. The court cited plaintiff's diligence in seeking to obtain information that she believed necessary for her extension request and found that she acted quickly to seek an extension once she learned defendant was in Vermont. Turning to the merits, the court stated that, pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 1103(e), it did not need to find abuse or a violation of the prior order before granting an extension request. See id. ("It is not necessary for the court to find that abuse has occurred during the pendency of the order to extend the terms of the order."). The court concluded that plaintiff satisfied her burden of proving that she needed an extension to protect her from further abuse. It cited plaintiff's testimony regarding the two incidents in which defendant violated the RFA order and noted that defendant had admitted engaging in the conduct she described. The court rejected defendant's assertion that these were simply technical violations and instead found them persuasive grounds for extending the RFA. This appeal followed. We consider in turn defendant's argument that plaintiff's motion was untimely, and the trial court's ruling on the merits.

I. Timeliness

¶ 11. We begin with defendant's assertion that the plain language of 15 V.S.A. § 1103(e) required plaintiff to seek her extension before the initial RFA order expired. Defendant maintains that the statute sets a firm deadline and when the order expires, it no longer exists, and there is nothing to extend. Defendant contends that if the Legislature intended to allow courts to extend RFA orders after they expired, it would have said so explicitly. Citing Arbuckle v. Ciccotelli,defendant asserts that any request to extend a final order after it has expired is outside the trial court's jurisdiction. 2004 VT 68, 177 Vt. 104, 857 A.2d 354. Assuming these arguments succeed, defendant asserts that the court erred in allowing plaintiff's filing based on excusable neglect.

¶ 12. The proper interpretation of § 1103(e) presents a question of law, which we review without deference. Heffernan v. Harbeson, 2004 VT 98, ¶ 7, 177 Vt. 239, 861 A.2d 1149. As set forth below, we construe § 1103(e) to allow plaintiff's filing here. Given our conclusion, we do not reach defendant's excusable-neglect argument.

¶ 13. As we have recognized, Vermont's Abuse Prevention Act "provid[es] a unique legal remedy, injunctive in nature, aimed at ending the cycle of domestic violence before it escalates." Raynes v. Rogers, 2008 VT 52, ¶ 8, 183 Vt. 513, 955 A.2d 1135. To this end, a party can obtain a relief-from-abuse order "if the court finds that the defendant has abused the plaintiff, and . . . there is a danger of further abuse." 15 V.S.A. § 1103(c)(1)(A). Section 1103(e) requires that relief be granted "for a fixed period," but enables the court, on a plaintiff's motion, to extend such orders "at the expiration" of the fixed period "for such additional time as it deems necessary to protect the plaintiff . . . from abuse." The statute does not directly address when a plaintiff must file an extension request.

¶ 14. In interpreting this statute, we seek "to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature." Heffernan, 2004 VT 98, ¶ 7 (quotation omitted). "When the statute's scope and meaning are readily apparent, no construction is necessary, and we apply the statute according to its terms." Id. If "there is doubt or ambiguity, however, we discern legislative intent by considering the statute as a whole, reading integral parts of the statutory scheme together." Id. "Thus, we must look not only at the letter of a statute but also at its reason and spirit to avoid results that are irrational or unreasonable." Id. (quotation omitted).

¶ 15. We are also...