Fonda v. Fay

306 A.2d 97, 131 Vt. 421, 1973 Vt. LEXIS 326
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedJune 5, 1973
Docket155-72
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 306 A.2d 97 (Fonda v. Fay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fonda v. Fay, 306 A.2d 97, 131 Vt. 421, 1973 Vt. LEXIS 326 (Vt. 1973).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered under V.R.C.P. 56. It must be reversed.

The original suit sought recovery for one-half the amount paid to discharge a certain promissory note upon which the plaintiffs and defendants were jointly liable. The defendants interposed as a defense a certain contract which they claimed exonerated them under certain circumstances. The hearing called for in V.R.C.P. 56(c) was held, with oral testimony presented in lieu of affidavits by consent of the court and the parties. That hearing developed evidence of an arrangement between the parties relating to discharge of the joint liability by events other than payment. The defense was that these events had become operative. After the • hearing, at some later time, the trial court granted summary judgment.

The defendants appeal contending that the hearing became an adjudication on the merits, which was improper in the presence of triable issues of fact. The Rule 56(c) hearing is solely to determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists. See V.R.C.P. 56 Reporter’s Notes, at 158. It cannot adjudicate such an issue in that hearing no matter how unlikely it seems that the party opposing the motion will prevail at trial. See 2 R. H. Field, V. L. McKusick, L. K. Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 56.4, at 39 (2d ed. 1970).

An examination of the record in this case reveals issues proper for disposition in a trial. The burden is on the moving party to establish that there are no such issues, and any doubts must be resolved against him. His adversary cannot be deprived of his right to trial on any other basis under this Rule, in the absence of waiver or default. The moving party has not satisfied this Court that that burden has, as a matter of law, been sustained in this case.

The entry of summary judgment is vacated, and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

leblanc v. estate of snelgrove
Vermont Superior Court, 2024
Choiniere and P&D Consulting, Inc. v. Marshall and Beach, PPLC
2014 VT 117 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2014)
Pierce v. Riggs
540 A.2d 655 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1987)
Burroughs v. West Windsor Board of School Directors
420 A.2d 861 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1980)
Burroughs v. WEST WINDSOR BD., ETC.
420 A.2d 861 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1980)
Campbell v. Dupont
417 A.2d 929 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1980)
Bennett Estate v. Travelers Insurance Co.
413 A.2d 1208 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1980)
State v. Heritage Realty
407 A.2d 509 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1979)
Sykas v. Kearns
383 A.2d 621 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1978)
South Burlington School District v. Goodrich
382 A.2d 220 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1977)
Central Vermont Public Service Corp. v. Town of Springfield
379 A.2d 677 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1977)
College Park Credit Corp. v. Carver
322 A.2d 305 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1974)
Johnson v. Fisher
306 A.2d 696 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.2d 97, 131 Vt. 421, 1973 Vt. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fonda-v-fay-vt-1973.