Supreme Court of Vermont, 1979

Waitt v. Waitt

Supreme Court of Vermont · Decided September 10, 1979 · Barney, C. J., and Daley, Larrow, Billings and Hill

406 A.2d 395; 137 Vt. 374; 1979 Vt. LEXIS 996 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Pella Products, Inc. v. Krutak (Vt. 1988)
Pierce v. Vaughan (Vt. 2012)
Fournier v. Fournier (Vt. 1999)
Goshy v. Morey (Vt. 1987)
Darken v. Mooney (Vt. 1984)
Morissette v. Morissette (Vt. 1983)
R. Brown & Sons, Inc. v. International Harvester Corp. (Vt. 1982)
Zinn v. Tobin Packing Co., Inc. (Vt. 1981)
Meacham v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., Inc. (Vt. 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order in a contested divorce case denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, *375 V.R.C.P. 59, and her motion for relief from the final judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the part of the defendant, and the negligence of her previous counsel, V.R.C.P. 60(b)(2), (3) and (6).

The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was filed eleven days after final judgment was entered, which is one day beyond the period specified in V.R.C.P. 59(b). The trial court properly denied the motion.

A motion for relief from judgment under V.R.C.P. 60 is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and is not subject to appellate review unless it clearly and affirmatively appears from the record that such discretion was withheld or otherwise abused. Kotz v. Kotz, 134 Vt. 36, 40, 349 A.2d 882, 885 (1975). The record before us demonstrates no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.