Background
Timothy Dasler and Jennifer Knapp were formerly married and share a minor child. After Knapp obtained a final relief-from-abuse order against Dasler and the parties divorced, Dasler repeatedly pursued litigation connected to the divorce and related family-court proceedings. The family division eventually entered an order under Vermont’s abusive-litigation statute restricting Dasler from pursuing litigation against Knapp unless he acted through a licensed attorney or obtained court approval.
In September 2025, Dasler sought permission to file a civil complaint against Knapp asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, interference with visitation and parental rights, false imprisonment, assault, breach of contract, and prima facie tort. The civil division denied permission without a hearing, finding the proposed complaint abusive. Dasler filed motions to reconsider and correct his application along with a notice of appeal, and the court clerk transmitted the appeal before the motions were resolved.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. It first held that the civil division did not err by transmitting the appeal after Dasler filed his notice of appeal. Although a timely motion to alter or amend would have tolled the appeal deadline, the notice transferred the matter to the Supreme Court, and Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 required the superior court clerk to transmit it. Dasler could have asked the Supreme Court to hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for rulings on his motions, but he did not.
The Court also upheld the determination that the proposed suit constituted abusive litigation. Under 15 V.S.A. § 1181(1)(D)(iii), the relevant requirement is satisfied when the issues underlying proposed litigation were previously filed elsewhere and the earlier actions were litigated and disposed of unfavorably to the filer. Dasler had raised the underlying tort issues in federal court, where his claims and proposed amendment were rejected and the Second Circuit summarily affirmed. The statute does not require the prior disposition to have been an adjudication on the merits. The prima facie tort theory likewise relied on the same previously litigated issues, even though Dasler had not previously pleaded that particular claim.
Key Takeaways
- A prior action may satisfy Vermont’s abusive-litigation statute even when it was disposed of on jurisdictional or abstention grounds rather than through a merits judgment.
- Section 1181(1)(D)(iii) focuses on whether the underlying issues were previously litigated and resolved unfavorably, not whether the same causes of action were pleaded.
- Filing a notice of appeal transfers the matter to the Supreme Court; a party seeking rulings on pending post-decision motions may request that the appeal be held in abeyance and the matter remanded.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the breadth of Vermont’s abusive-litigation screening process. A litigant subject to prefiling restrictions cannot avoid the statute merely by repackaging previously rejected issues under a new legal theory or by emphasizing that an earlier case ended without a merits determination.
The ruling also provides procedural guidance for litigants who file post-decision motions: a timely qualifying motion may toll the appeal period, while filing a notice of appeal triggers transmission of the case to the Supreme Court.