Pockette v. LaDuke
| Decision Date | 02 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 320-80,320-80 |
| Citation | 139 Vt. 625,432 A.2d 1191 |
| Parties | John H. POCKETTE and Eleanor B. Pockette v. Catherine F. LaDUKE d/b/a LaDuke's Restaurant. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Jeffrey T. Smith, Brandon, for plaintiffs.
Joseph M. O'Neill, Rutland, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and LARROW, BILLINGS, HILL and UNDERWOOD, JJ.
This case calls upon us to clarify the role of assistant judges in equity cases pending before a superior court. A brief recitation of the facts reveals the necessity of the rule we lay down today.
Defendant installed an oil tank on plaintiffs' property without permission or warning. Over four years later, plaintiffs filed suit in Rutland Superior Court for an injunction to have the tank removed and for damages and costs. Plaintiffs alleged they were without adequate remedy at law. Defendant answered with a general denial and an affirmative defense sounding in laches.
Following a hearing held before a presiding superior judge and the two assistant judges, defendant was ordered to remove the oil tank and pay $3,000.00 in damages plus costs. The presiding judge dissented in the damage award.
Defendant moved for a clarification of the notice of decision, which was granted. From the subsequent judgment order, defendant moved for an amendment of the decision pursuant to V.R.C.P. 59(e), or, in the alternative, for a partial new trial. Defendant claimed that the defense of laches was not considered by the court and that the damage award was without foundation.
The court rejected both the motion to amend judgment and the motion for a new trial. The presiding judge, however, dissented in part, writing that a new trial should be granted to reconsider both the laches defense and whether the damage award was based on corroborated evidence.
Defendant on appeal claims, inter alia, that, as this case sounds in equity, the assistant judges should not have participated. Certainly, this case clearly sounds in equity. See Gerald Park Improvement Ass'n. v. Bini, 138 Conn. 232, 236, 83 A.2d 195 (1951).
4 V.S.A. § 219 states:
All rights, powers and duties of a chancellor shall vest exclusively in the presiding judges of the superior court and the powers and jurisdiction of the courts that were heretofore vested in the courts of chancery shall vest in the superior court. (Emphasis added).
The statute dictates that a presiding superior court judge alone and exclusively shall hear cases in equity. Assistant judges have no role in these matters, and their presence is improper.
Although the participation by the assistant judges apparently went without formal protest from either party, the procedural defect in the case at bar is not thereby remedied. See Gerdel v. Gerdel, 132 Vt. 58, 65, 313 A.2d 8 (1973). A superior court constituted with one presiding judge and two assistant judges is without jurisdiction to hear a case sounding in equity. Only a court with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soucy v. Soucy Motors, Inc.
...under the court's equitable jurisdiction, and this was not disturbed by the defendant's legal counterclaim. In Pockette v. LaDuke, 139 Vt. 625, 432 A.2d 1191 (1981), we held that the trial court, composed of the presiding judge and two assistant judges, was without jurisdiction under 4 V.S.......
-
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Conway
...assistant judges in cases in equity could require reversal. See Maskell v. Beaulieu, 140 Vt. 75, 435 A.2d 699 (1981); Pockette v. LaDuke, 139 Vt. 625, 432 A.2d 1191 (1981). Here, however, the case was decided on stipulated facts, so there was no hearing and no fact-finding by the assistant ......
-
Solomon v. Atlantis Development, Inc., 403-81
...trial court entered its final judgment in the case on May 27, 1981. A week later, on June 2, 1981, this Court decided Pockette v. LaDuke, 139 Vt. 625, 432 A.2d 1191 (1981), holding that a superior court composed of a presiding judge and two assistant judges did not have jurisdiction to hear......
-
Brower v. Holmes Transp., Inc.
...V.R.C.P. 83(1). But we are presented with no grounds for reversal. This case is clearly distinguishable from Pockette v. LaDuke, 139 Vt. ---, 432 A.2d 1191 (1981), where the assistant judges, sitting improperly, prevailed over the presiding judge. The authority of that case should be limite......