Legal Community

NOTE: The following Proposed Amendments are proposed by the Rules Committees and have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court.  To view more information click on the + next to the title.  To view the complete proposal click on the title.

Brief Statement about Rule Contact and Address   Proposed Emergency Amendment to Rule 30 of the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure The proposed emergency amendments to Rule 30(b), (d), and (f) provide that in cases without an electronic case file, a litigant must file eight paper copies and an electronic copy of the printed case, supplemental printed case, and exhibits.  The temporary rule which is set to expire on June 30, 2013, allows the filing of only one paper copy of the printed case which proved to be insufficient for the needs of the Court.   The proposed emergency amendment to Rule 30(a) requires the sequential numbering of the printed case to begin on the cover sheet.  This will make the page references consistent with the electronic pagination.  The proposed emergency amendment to Rule 30(c) clarifies that in cases with an electronic case file, litigants may file a printed case, but are not required to do so.   Comments on this proposed emergency amendment should be sent by June 8, 2013 to Kinvin Wroth, the Reporter of the Civil Rules Committee.  He can be reached by e-mail or U.S. mail at the following addresses:   Professor L. Kinvin Wroth Vermont Law School Chelsea Street South Royalton, VT  05068 kwroth@vermontlaw.edu Professor L. Kinvin Wroth Vermont Law School Chelsea Street South Royalton, VT 05068 kwroth@vermontlaw.edu   Proposed MCLE Amendments Since the institution of the requirement of continuing legal education for attorneys admitted to practice law in Vermont, separate rules and regulations have governed.  These rules and regulations defined the minimal educational requirement, how they could be met, and the process a sponsoring agency must follow in order to offer courses for CLE credit, among other things.  The rules often overlapped with the regulations, and some topics were discussed in both the rules and regulations.  This created an often cumbersome process for attorneys seeking information on the requirements for continuing legal education.  There is no distinction to be made between the rules and regulations, as the Vermont Supreme Court must approve of and administer both.  Therefore, the Board of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education has consolidated the rules and regulations into one document, the Rules for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education.  There have been no substantive changes to the rules or regulations during this rewrite.  The proposed change has been made in an effort to achieve simplicity and for the convenience of those governed by the rules.   Comments on these proposed amendments should be sent by July 2, 2013 to the Hon. Karen Carroll, the Chair of the Mandatory Legal Education Board.  She can be reached by e-mail or U.S. mail at the following addresses:   Hon. Karen Carroll, Chair Mandatory Legal Education Board 111 State Street, Suite 9B Montpelier, VT  05609-0701 Jud-attylicensing@state.vt.us Hon. Karen Carroll, Chair Mandatory Legal Education Board 111 State Street, Suite 9B Montpelier, VT 05609-0701 Jud-attylicensing@state.vt.us   Proposed Amendments to V.R.A.P. 5(b), 6, 10(b)(5), 12(a), 12(b)(1) and 12(c), The following amendments are proposed for adoption in connection with the proposed restyled appellate rules.   The proposed amendment to Rule 5(b)(5) eliminates language that is redundant to Rule 5(b)(1)-(4), which contains the requirements for filing an interlocutory appeal in different types of cases.  The proposed amendment also eliminates a statement in Rule 5(b)(8)(A) that is not necessary since the Court has discretion to dismiss an interlocutory appeal that was improvidently granted.   The proposed amendment to Rule 6 provides a procedure for appeals from final judgments where permission to appeal must be obtained from the trial court or the Supreme Court.   The proposed amendment to Rule 10(b)(5) deletes a phrase which is unnecessary because Rule 33(a) already contains a procedure for prehearing conferences, which the parties are free to adapt.   The proposed amendment to Rule 12(a) specifies that the Supreme Court docket clerk must receive a copy of the certified docket entries from the trial court before docketing an appeal.  The proposed amendments to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(c) removes the requirement that the Supreme Court clerk receive the record before notifying the parties that record is complete in cases where no transcript is ordered.   The proposed amendment to Rule 28(j) requires parties to file eight copies of any supplemental authority for conformity with the number of briefs required to be filed by Rule 31(b).   The proposed amendment to Rule 33(a)(1) reflects the reality that self-represented parties may also be directed to appear for a prehearing conference.   The proposed amendment to Rule 34(b) requires a request for additional time to be made by motion rather than in a letter addressed to the clerk.   The proposed amendment deletes Rule 39(c)(4) because Rule 31(b) no longer requires the filing of an original brief, requiring merely eight copies.  The price per folio is a term no longer used.   The proposed amendment to Rule 40(a) provides a time limit for filing a request to extend the period for filing a motion to reargue.  In addition, because the prior page-limit in Rule 40(b)(2) was changed to a word-count limit, the parties must now certify compliance with the word-count limit similar to the existing requirement in Rule 32(a)(7)(D).   The proposed amendment to Rule 45.1 recognizes that self-represented parties will not necessarily have an e-mail address, but requires attorneys to provide an e-mail address.   The comment period ended April 12, 2013.   Proposed Restyled Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure The proposed restyled V.R.A.P. adopts the format and approach of the restyled Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure adopted in 1998. The restyling is not intended to change the meaning of any rule but is intended to provide a more accessible format for the rules and to simplify them by eliminating ambiguous or archaic language and adopting a more straightforward style.  The proposed rules are displayed in a side-by-side table with the current rule on the left and the proposed rule on the right.  A few substantive changes in connection with the proposed restyling are delineated in II.(d) of this memo.   The comment period ended April 12, 2013.     Proposed Amendments to V.R.S.C.P. 3, 7, 8 and 13 The proposed amendment to V.R.S.C.P. 3(b) simplifies the rule by substituting a single 30-day response time for the answer and eliminating the acknowledgement provisions under which a defendant was allowed an additional 20 days to answer after filing an acknowledgement that the summons and complaint had been received.   The proposed amendment to V.R.S.C.P. 3(d) clarifies that an answer is due either within 30 days of the date of mailing of the summons and complaint or within 30 days of service by the sheriff.   The proposed amendment to V.R.S.C.P. 3(e) and the addition of 3(h) address the complexities that may arise in credit card debt collection actions by requiring the plaintiff creditor to establish the existence of the debt and ownership of it.   The proposed amendment to V.R.S.C.P. 3(e) requires that a motion for default in a credit card must be accompanied by signed evidence of the debt or, in the absence of such documentation, a credit card statement showing the debt, “or other competent evidence” of it.   The proposed amendment to V.R.S.C.P. 7(d) eliminates the requirement that the judgment creditor serve an order resulting from a financial disclosure hearing by sheriff.  The change allows this service to be accomplished by first class mail.   The proposed amendment to V.R.S.C.P. 8(c), regarding the consequences of a debtor failing to appear at a contempt hearing, eliminates the word “ordinarily” and substitutes the word “may,” recognizing that it is fully within the court’s discretion to decide what any penalty should be.   The proposed amendment to V.R.S.C.P. 13 makes clear that, although V.R.C.P. 11 does not apply to small claims proceedings of its own force by virtue of V.R.S.C.P. 1(a), it may be used by analogy in a proper case when a party’s pleadings, motions, or other written submissions are calculated to impede the purpose of the Small Claims Rules to secure “a simple, informal, and inexpensive disposition of” the claim.   The comment period ended April 12, 2013.   Proposed Amendments to V.R.F.P. (1)(b)(1)-(2), 2(b)(2), 4(b)(1)(A), and 8(g) The proposed amendment to V.R.F.P. 1(b)(1) requires that the petition in a delinquency proceeding be supplemented by factual data concerning the race/ethnicity of the child who is the subject of the proceeding. The proposed amendment provides that the facts to be presented are those contained in the Law Enforcement Juvenile Data Sheet, Form 101.   The proposed amendments to V.R.F.P. 1(b)(2) and 2(b)(2) substitute references to § 1079 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act for references to similar references to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Acts which was repealed.   In light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Samis v. Samis, 2011 VT 21, ¶¶ 10-17, 189 Vt. 434, 22 A.3d 444, the proposed amendment to V.R.F.P. 4(b)(1)(A) substitutes more specific language for the general language of the present rule that allows a divorce action to be brought by a “guardian, guardian ad litem , or next friend” for a plaintiff who is not “of sound mind and of the age of 16 years.”   The proposed amendment to V.R.F.P. 8(g) eliminates the requirement that the provisions of V.R.A.P. 10-12 concerning notice of completion of the record apply in an appeal from a magistrate’s decision to the Family Division.   The comment period ended April 12, 2013.   Proposed Amendments to V.R.F.P. 7, 7.1 and 9 The proposed amendment abrogates current Rule 7 of the Vermont Rules for Family Proceedings, applicable to appointment of guardians ad litem (GALs) and attorneys for minors in proceedings under Rules 4 and 9, and replaces the rule with a revised Rule 7 intended to address issues that have arisen under the original rule.   Proposed Rule 7.1 would be added simultaneously with the adoption of significant revisions to Rule 7.  The purpose is to make clear the different circumstances that govern appointment of a guardian ad litem for a child, not a subject of the proceedings, who is to testify.   The proposed amendment to Rule 9 would add a new section that provides that a petition for relief of a vulnerable adult, as defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14), from abuse, neglect, or exploitation may be filed either by the vulnerable adult or by an “interested person” on the vulnerable adult’s behalf.   The comment period ended on May 21, 2012.    Proposed Search Warrant Return and Inventory Form In conjunction with the proposed amendments to V.R.Cr.P. 41, the Committee proposes the adoption of a Search Warrant and Return and Inventory Form.   The comment period ended on May 21, 2012.    Proposed Amendment to Comment 3 to Rule 4.1 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct Proposed Comment [3] would be added to Rule 4.1 to address concerns expressed by government lawyers that the Supreme Court’s decision in In re PRB Docket No. 2007-046, 2009 VT 115, 187 Vt. 35, 989 A.2d 523, might be understood as affecting the traditional use of deception as an investigative mechanism in the enforcement of criminal or other laws.   The comment period ended on August 26, 2011.

NOTE: To view more information click on the + next to the title.  To view the complete proposal click on the title.

Brief Statement about Rule Promulgated Date Promulgated Effective Date  Order Promulating Amendments to V.R.P.P. 64, 68 and 72 The amendment to Rule 64(a) of the Vermont Rules of Probate Procedure provides consistency with the amendment of V.R.P.P. 4(e) promulgated effective July 10, 2012, to conform to the amendment of that rule by Act 144 of 2011 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.  The statute and the rule amendment eliminate the requirement of publication in two successive weeks in favor of a single publication.  Notice to creditors under Rule 64(a) is to be published as provided in amended V.R.P.P. 4(e) unless notice has previously been given.   The amendment to V.R.P.P. 68 conforms the rule to Act No. 78 of 2011 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. April 2, 2012, which renamed the Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration as the Department of Financial Regulation.   The amendments to V.R.P.P. 72 provide a uniform procedure for enforcement of probate division orders by contempt proceedings. March 12, 2013 May 13, 2013  Order Promulgating Amendments to the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure The amendment to Rules 11(c) and (d) of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure relates to pleas of guilty or nolo contendere in misdemeanor cases.   The amendment to V.R.Cr.P. 16.2 follows revisions to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Discovery, Third Edition.  The amendment to V.R.Cr.P. 26 increases to thirty days before trial the notice required of an intent to introduce evidence of other acts or offenses.   The amendment to V.R.Cr.P. 30 contemplates that the court will have discretion to give preliminary instructions prior to the taking of evidence, as well as to give some instructions after the close of evidence, but prior to argument.   The amendments to V.R.Cr.P. 41, consistent with Administrative Order No. 43 issued on January 20, 2012, provide specific procedures for the timely filing of documents associated with the issuance, denial and execution of search warrants, and the returns and inventories required following execution.    The amendment to V.R.Cr.P. 44.2(c) provides consistency in treatment of withdrawal of counsel following entry of judgment of conviction, which occurs at time of sentencing pursuant to Rule 32(b). March 12, 2013 May 13, 2013  Order Promulgating Amendments to A.O. 45 The amendments to A.O. 45 expand the use of e-mail delivery of court-generated notices and documents to the Supreme Court and the Judicial Bureau and to self-represented litigants and case participants other than lawyers representing litigants. The amendments also make changes in the procedures for e-mail delivery of notices and documents in light of the experience in the units and divisions of the superior court that have employed the e-mail delivery.   These amendments promulgated on February 6, 2013, are effective on April 8, 2013. February 6, 2013 April 8, 2013  Order Promulgating Amendments to Electronic Filing The amendments to V.R.E.F. 3(a) and (b), 7(d), 12(g), V.R.C.P. 79.1, V.R.A.P. 3(d), 10(a)(3), 13(c) & 45.1, V.R.F.P. 15(i), V.R.E.P. 5(c), V.R.Cr.P. 44.2(e) and V.R.P.P. 79.1(i) require attorneys appearing in cases in the superior court and the Supreme Court in their initial filing to provide the court with their eCabinet registration number that was assigned on registering an e-mail address or addresses pursuant to Rule 3 of the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing.  The requirement also applies to self-represented litigants in the Supreme Court who choose to receive documents and notices by e-mail.   These amendments were promulgated on February 6, 2013, and effective April 8, 2013. February 6, 2013 April 8, 2013  Order Abrogating A.O. 28 and Promulgating Emergency Amendment to V.R.A.P. 10 Administrative Order No. 28 has been abrogated.  The emergency amendment to V.R.A.P. 10 makes general edits to reflect that the creation of transcripts for use on appeal is contracted to companies providing transcription service rather than individual transcribers.  Rule 10(b)(2) clarifies that transcripts may be ordered directly on the transcription services’ websites without the use of a paper order form.  The revised rule allows parties to provide a copy of the transcript order to represented parties by electronic mail.  Rule 10(b)(7) no longer references A.O. 28, which has been abrogated, and delineates that the transcription service may require a deposit prior to beginning transcription.  Parties are informed of the specific deposit amount by the transcription service and the Court Administrator’s Office sets limits on that amount.   February 6, 2013 February 6, 2013  Order Promulgating Amendments to Rule 80.3 of the Vermont Rules of Probate Procedure Rules 80.3(a)-(d) of the Vermont Rules of Probate Procedure are amended for clarity and for consistency with other provisions of the rules and the amendments to 14 V.S.A. §§ 1901-1903 enacted by Act No. 75 of 2009 (Adj. Sess.).  That legislation simplified the requirements of inventory, eliminated the requirement of sureties and gave the court discretion as to the amount of the bond for the payment of funeral expenses, and added a finding of a surviving parent or parents but no spouse or child to the circumstances in which the court may grant administration and issue letters without further notice or bond.   Subdivision (h) was added to formalize and make uniform the affidavit procedure that is used in many probate courts.   August 28, 2012 October 29, 2012  Order Promulgating Amendments to § 4 of Administrative Order No. 41 In conjunction with the amendment to the Rules of Admission to the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court, license fees have been changed from a pro-rated fee to a flat fee.  The flat fee is less than the applicant would pay if the fee were pro-rated because the new attorney is licensed for a period between two years and three years. July 17, 2012 September 1, 2012  Order Promulgating Amendments to § 12 of the Vermont Rules of Admission to the Bar Rule 12 is amended to provide a procedure for the admission of new attorneys.  Under prior practice, applicants seeking admission to the Bar were required to attend an admission ceremony at the Vermont Supreme Court.  At the ceremony, the Court would hear and grant an oral motion for admission of new attorneys, and the new attorneys would take the required oaths.  The amendment to Rule 12 allows the Board to make a written motion to the Court.  Once the motion is granted, the applicant may take the required oath before a Vermont judge or court clerk or before a federal judge or state-court judge in another state.  This change in practice allows new attorneys to be admitted more quickly and will eliminate the need for those located outside Vermont to travel to Vermont for admission. July 17, 2012 September 1, 2012  Order Promulgating Amendments to V.R.P.P. 4(e), 17(a) and 79.1 Rule 4(e) was amended by Act 144 of the 2011 (Adj. Sess.), effective May 15, 2012, to eliminate the requirement that notice by publication in a probate proceeding must be published in two successive weeks.  This amendment to V.R.P.P. 4(e) requires only a single publication within 20 days after filing of the petition or granting of the order.   Rule 17(a)(1) was also amended by Act 144, effective May 15, 2012, to add subsection (b) providing that in a probate proceeding involving a decedent’s estate, “an interested party” need not be served under Rule 4 if the party cannot be located for other good cause based on a finding that not giving notice “serves the interests of justice and the efficient administration of the estate.” This amendment makes changes of form in the enacted amendment.   The amendment to V.R.P.P. 79.1 permits a lawyer acting pursuant to a limited representation agreement with a pro se client to enter a limited appearance in the Probate Division in certain specific situations.   The amendments to V.R.P.P. 4(e) and 17(a), promulgated on July 10, 2012, are effective immediately.  The amendments to V.R.P.P. 79.1., also promulgated on July 10, 2012, are effective on September 10, 2012.  July 10, 2012 July 10, 2012 and September 10, 2012  Order Promulgating Amendments to Rules 28(d) and 72 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure The amendment to V.R.C.P. 28(d), providing for depositions to be taken in Vermont for use in another jurisdiction, limits its applicability to depositions that are to be taken for use in civil actions in a U.S. district court or in proceedings in another country under that country’s laws.  The amendment to V.R.C.P. 72 implements the interlocutory appeal provision of the Vermont Trust Code, 14A V.S.A. § 201, and reflects the establishment of the Civil Division pursuant to Act 154 of 2009 (Adj. Sess.). July 10, 2012 September 10, 2012 To view items click on arrow 1 - 10

NOTE: T To view more information click on the + next to the title.  To view the complete proposal click on the title.

Brief Statement about Rule  Consolidated Amendments to Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing, Dissemination of Electronic Case Records, Rules of Appellate Procedure, Civil Rules of Procedure, Administrative Order Nos. 41, 44 and 45 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing [Adopted as Emergency Rules on August 17, 2010; Amended on October 20, 2010, December 14, 2010, February 23, 2011; March 22, 2011] Emergency amendments made permanent on August 30, 2011, effective October 31, 2011 Further Amendments to Rules 3(f) and 10(a) adopted on August 30, 2011; eff. October 31, 2011 Additional Amendments to Rules 3(b) and (c); adopted on May 30, 2012; eff. July 30, 2012