|
|
|
Legal Community
Proposed and Promulgated
Rules
|
|
|
 |
Proposed
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 Amendments to V.R.F.P. 7, 7.1, and 9 | Proposed Rule 7, applicable to appointment of guardians ad litem (GALs) and attorneys for minors in proceedings under Rules 4 and 9, is replaced by a revised version intended to address issues that have arisen under the original rule.
Proposed Rule 7.1 is added simultaneously with the adoption of significant revisions to proposed Rule 7. The purpose is to make clear the different circumstances that govern appointment of a GAL for a child, not a subject of the proceedings, who is to testify. This rule is derived from former Rule 7(e)(2) which made provisions for testimony by such a child.
Proposed Rule 9(l) is added to implement the provisions of 33 V.S.A. § 6931 et seq., which provide 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.
Comments on these proposed amendments should be sent by August 16, 2013 to Jody Racht, the Chair of the Family Rules Committee. She can be reached by email or U.S. mail at the following addresses:
Jody Racht, Esq., Chair
Vermont Attorney General’s Office
Ladd Hall, 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-0701
Jody.racht@state.vt.us | Jody Racht, Esq., Chair
Vermont Attorney General’s Office
Ladd Hall, 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-0701
Jody.racht@state.vt.us
| | Proposed Amendments to V.R.C.P. 80.1(b)(3) and 80.9, and V.R.E.C.P. 5(h)(1) | The proposed amendment to Rule 80.1(b)(3) reflects the elimination and consolidation of the functions of the Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration in the Department of Financial Regulation.
The proposed amendment to Rule 80.9 reflects the elimination of the District Court and the transfer of its jurisdiction over municipal parking violations to the Criminal Division of the Superior Court by § 7c of Act 154 of 2009 (Adj. Sess.), adding 4 V.S.A. § 32(c)(11). Note that by virtue of 4 V.S.A. § 1102(c), the Judicial Bureau has no jurisdiction over municipal parking violations.
The proposed amendment to V.R.E.C.P. 5(h)(1) requires the appellant to produce a transcript in all on-the-record appeals, eliminating the former distinction that allowed the appellant to submit an electronic recording of proceedings of less than 12 hours in duration. That process made it difficult for the court to review the recording and for parties in oral argument to make specific reference to the recording. The amendment also clarifies that on-the-record appeals are governed by all applicable provisions of the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure except as modified by this rule, rather than V.R.A.P. 10-12.1.
Comments on these proposed amendments should be sent by August 16, 2013 to William Griffin, the Chair of the Civil Rules Committee. He can be reached by e-mail or U.S. mail at the following addresses:
William Griffin, Esq., Chair
Civil Rules Committee
Office of the Attorney General
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-1001
bgriffin@atg.state.vt.us | William Griffin, Esq., Chair
Civil Rules Committee
Office of the Attorney General
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-1001
bgriffin@atg.state.vt.us
| | 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 | | 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 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. | |
|
|
Promulgated Rules Over the Last Two Years
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 Promulgating Amendments to V.R.F.P. 1(b)(1)-(2), 2(b)(2), 4(b)(1)(A), and 8(g) | The 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 amendment provides that the facts to be presented are those contained in the Law Enforcement Juvenile Data Sheet, Form 101.
The amendment to V.R.F.P. 1(b)(2) and 2(b)(2) substitutes references to § 1079 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act for similar references to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act 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 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 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.
| June 11, 2013 | August 12, 2013 | | Order Promulgating Restyled Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure | The restyled Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure adopt 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. A few substantive changes in connection with the restyling are delineated below:
The docketing statement previously incorporated in Rule 3 is no longer part of the rule. It will be available on the Vermont Judiciary website.
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. A statement was eliminated in Rule 5(b)(8)(A) as originally restyled that was not necessary since the Court has discretion to dismiss an interlocutory appeal that was improvidently granted.
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.
A phrase was deleted in Rule 10(b)(5) which was unnecessary because Rule 33(a) already contains a procedure for prehearing conferences, which the parties are free to adapt.
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. Rule sections 12(b)(1) and 12(c) remove 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.
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).
Rule 33(a)(1) reflects the reality that self-represented parties may also be directed to appear for a prehearing conference.
Rule 34(b) requires a request for additional time to be made by motion rather than in a letter addressed to the clerk.
Rule 39(c)(4) was deleted because Rule 31(b) no longer requires the filing of an original brief, just eight copies, and the price per folio is a term no longer used.
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).
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.
Rule 46 no longer refers to an appendix of forms. The forms will be available on the Judiciary website.
| June 11, 2013 | September 3, 2013 | | Order Promulgating Emergency Amendments to Rule 30 of the V.R.A.P. | The emergency amendment to Rules 30(b), (d) and (f) provides that in cases without an electronic case file, a litigant must file eight paper copies and an electronic copy of the printed cases and exhibits. The temporary rule allowed the filing of only one paper copy of the printed case, and this proved to be insufficient for the needs of the Court.
The 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 emergency amendment to Rule 30(c) clarifies that in cases with an electronic file, litigants may file a printed case, but are not required to do so.
These emergency amendments were promulgated without resort to the notice and comment procedures set forth in A.O. 11 since the prior amendments to Rules 30(b), (d) and (f) are set to expire on June 30, 2013, and all of the amendments are necessary to the continued effective functioning of the Court.
| June 11, 2013 | July 1, 2013 | | 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 |
To view items click on arrow 1
- 10  |
|
|
Consolidated Amendments to Electronic
Filing
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|