Vermont Investment Capital, Inc. v. Kramer

Supreme Court of Vermont

Vermont Investment Capital, Inc. v. Kramer

533 A.2d 1193, 148 Vt. 632, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 523

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedSeptember 3, 1987

DocketNo. 84-498

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 533 A.2d 1193 (Vermont Investment Capital, Inc. v. Kramer) 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

Vermont Investment Capital, Inc. v. Kramer, 533 A.2d 1193, 148 Vt. 632, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 523 (Vt. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Following entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action on a promissory note, defendant, appearing pro se, filed motions for relief from judgment and judgment on the pleadings under V.R.C.P. 60(b) and V.R.C.P. 12(c). After hearing, the trial court denied both motions without notice of the reasons for its action.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is a pretrial motion, and relief cannot be granted thereon after judgment is entered. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of this motion was proper.

The motion for relief from judgment, however, was the appropriate vehicle through which to seek the relief sought by defendant. We are unable to review the judge’s ruling on this motion because of the absence of any statement of the reason(s) for the court’s action, or any indication thereof on the face of the record. While findings of fact and conclusions of law are not essential, V.R.C.P. 52(a), it is a useful practice, particularly where, as here, the motion raises apparently complicated issues of fact and the movant is pro se. See Merchants National Bank v. Considine, 135 Vt. 416, 417, 377 A.2d 1390, 1391-92 (1977). At the very least, the court must, in a case such as this, give an indication as to the basis for its decision, unless it is clear on the face of the record.

Affirmed as to the motion for judgment on the pleadings; reversed and remanded for a new hearing on defendant’s motion for relief from judgment.

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

Following entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action on a promissory note, defendant, appearing pro se, filed motions for relief from judgment and judgment on the pleadings under V.R.C.P. 60(b) and V.R.C.P. 12(c). After hearing, the trial court denied both motions without notice of the reasons for its action.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is a pretrial motion, and relief cannot be granted thereon after judgment is entered. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of this motion was proper.

The motion for relief from judgment, however, was the appropriate vehicle through which to seek the relief sought by defendant. We are unable to review the judge’s ruling on this motion because of the absence of any statement of the reason(s) for the court’s action, or any indication thereof on the face of the record. While findings of fact and conclusions of law are not essential, V.R.C.P. 52(a), it is a useful practice, particularly where, as here, the motion raises apparently complicated issues of fact and the movant is pro se. See Merchants National Bank v. Considine, 135 Vt. 416, 417, 377 A.2d 1390, 1391-92 (1977). At the very least, the court must, in a case such as this, give an indication as to the basis for its decision, unless it is clear on the face of the record.

Affirmed as to the motion for judgment on the pleadings; reversed and remanded for a new hearing on defendant’s motion for relief from judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 A.2d 1193, 148 Vt. 632, 1987 Vt. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vermont-investment-capital-inc-v-kramer-vt-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack