dodd v. cheney ( 2024 )

Vermont Superior Court
Filed 02/12 24
Lamoille nit
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT 1
fl4 CIVIL DIVISION
Lamoille Unit Case No. 24-SC-00112
154 Main Street
Hyde Park VT 05655
802-888—3887 fifi
wwwvermontjudjciaryorg
Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney
ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion for an Order Restricting Abusive Litigation (Motion: 2)
Filer: Paige Cheney
Filed Date: February 08, 2024
The motion is GRANTED IN PART.
Plaintiff Dodd has filed a small court claim for money that he claimed that he paid to
Defendant Cheney over a period of 20 months that Defendant set aside and used to purchase
Defendant’s current house. Plaintiff also claims that he contributed to the purchase of a bed that is
still in the custody of Defendant.
Defendant Cheney in her answer denies that she set any money aside from Plaintiff Dodd to
purchase her house. Defendant also states that she has no interest in keeping the bed and that
Plaintiff may take it once his lawyer makes arrangements with Defendant to pick it up as established
in the Relief from Abuse Order that Defendant has against Plaintiff.
The Court understands the portion of Defendants answer concerning the bed to remove
that issue from dispute. Defendant is effectively recognizing Defendant’s claim to the bed and is
turning ownership over to him. Given this concession, there is no damage or live claim on this
issue, and it is dismissed as a matter of law because there is no controversy or relief t0 be given.
Houston a Tau/n of Whitfield, 2007 VT 135, 1] 5 (mem.).
This leaves only Plaintiff’ s claim that Defendant, with his permission, allocated his money to
a house—savings fund that she then used to purchase her house. While Plaintiff is not alleging any
contract or agreement, he does make out the basic claim for unjust enrichment. MrLarefl v. Gabe],
2020 VT 8, 1] 11 23—26 (holding that an unmarried cohabitants may seek compensation for
investment in real property made under another’s name where the elements of unjust enrichment are
Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 3
24—SC—001 12 Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney
met). Defendant denies these payments and contends that any money she received from Plaintiff
went to the essential expenses of their joint household.
Before the Court can address the underlying merits of this claim, however, it must address
Defendant’s motion to dismiss under 15 V.S.A. § 1182. Defendant has filed a motion and seeks to
dismiss the present action based on a newly enacted Vermont law to protect individuals against
abusive litigation. Under 15 V.S.A. § 1181(a), “abusive litigation” exists where:
(A) The opposing parties have a current or former family or household member
relationship or there has been a civil order or criminal conviction determining that
one of the parties stalked or sexually assaulted the other party.
(B) The party who is filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing the litigation has been
found by a court to have abused, stalked, or sexually assaulted the other party
pursuant to:
(i) a final order issued pursuant to subchapter 1 of this chapter (abuse prevention
orders);
(ii) a final order issued pursuant to 12 V.S.A. chapter 178 (orders against stalking or
sexual assault);
(iii) a final foreign abuse prevention order;
(iv) an order under section 665a of this title (conditions of parent-child contact in
cases involving domestic violence);
(v) a conviction for domestic assault pursuant to 13 V.S.A. chapter 19, subchapter 6;
stalking pursuant to 13 V.S.A. chapter 19, subchapter 7; or sexual assault pursuant to
13 V.S.A. chapter 72; or
(vi) a court determination of probable cause for a charge of domestic assault and the
court imposed criminal conditions of release pertaining to the safety of the victim,
which include distance restrictions or restrictions on contact with the victim.
(C) The litigation is being initiated, advanced, or continued primarily for the purpose
of abusing, harassing, intimidating, threatening, or maintaining contact with the other
party.
(D) At least one of the following applies:
(i) the claims, allegations, or other legal contentions made in the litigation are not
warranted by existing law or by a reasonable argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law;
(ii) the allegations and other factual contentions made in the litigation are without
adequate evidentiary support or are unlikely to have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation; or
Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 3
24-SC-00112 Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney
(iii) an issue or issues that are the basis of the litigation have previously been filed in
one or more other courts or jurisdictions and the actions have been litigated and
disposed of unfavorably to the party filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing the
litigation.
15 V.S.A. § 1181(1).
In the present case, Defendant has established criteria A and B through reference to the
Relief from Abuse matter between her and Plaintiff at 23-FA-03383. The remaining issues to be
established are under criteria C and D, which concern whether the intent of the present litigation is
abusive and whether there is a legal and factual basis to the present litigation. In this case, it is not
readily determinable whether Plaintiff instituted the present action primarily for the purpose of
abusing, harassing, intimidating, threatening, or maintaining contact with Defendant. While there is
some legal basis for the present claim, there is a lack of evidence at this stage to substantiate
Plaintiff’s allegation. Plaintiff states in his complaint that he has proof in his bank statements of
these payments.
Therefore, the Court shall set this matter for a 30-minute hearing in accordance with 15
V.S.A. § 1182. At this hearing, the Court will take testimony and evidence from the parties in
support of Plaintiff’s underlying claim as well as Defendant’s contention that there were no such
overpayments and that Plaintiff’s claims are devoid of any factual support. Parties may also provide
testimony on the sufficiency of the legal claims, but as indicated above, the basic pleadings do
appear to have some legal foundation in the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court will rule on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and
if necessary, on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim. In this respect, the hearing shall also function as a
final hearing on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim if it survives Defendant’s 15 V.S.A. § 1182 motion to
dismiss.
So Ordered.
Electronically signed on 2/9/2024 5:35 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)
__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge
Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 3
24-SC-00112 Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney