Background
Neighbors James Jerome and defendants Kerry Raheb and Renee Houston disputed rights to use a driveway easement for ingress and egress. In January 2022, Jerome sued, alleging defendants blocked his access and asserting claims for nuisance, intentional interference with prospective business relationships, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During litigation, defendants filed numerous motions, including requests for dismissal and judge recusals, and refused to participate in discovery, which prevented mediation.
In September 2024, the trial court granted Jerome’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding defendants liable on all three counts. The court held a damages hearing in July 2025. Though defendants received notice, they did not attend or request a continuance. The court entered final judgment based on evidence presented.
In August 2025, defendants moved to vacate the judgment under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and (b)(6), alleging fraud. They claimed Jerome fraudulently asserted an easement and conducted business at the property, and attributed their absence from the damages hearing to a family member’s death and lack of counsel. The trial court denied the motion, and defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. Defendants failed to satisfy the demanding “clear and convincing evidence” standard required to prove fraud under Rule 60(b)(3), particularly given that fraud allegations must involve “egregious misconduct.” The trial court properly concluded defendants presented insufficient factual support for claims that Jerome fraudulently possessed an easement or operated a business at the property.
The court rejected defendants’ claim that excusable neglect justified their absence from the damages hearing. The trial court found defendants had full notice, did not appear, did not request a continuance, and did not timely notify the court of unavailability. That defendants mentioned a family member’s death only in their August reply memorandum—more than six weeks after the July hearing—did not constitute clear and convincing evidence supporting excusable neglect.
The court also held that defendants improperly attempted to use the Rule 60(b) motion to resurrect claims they should have raised as counterclaims or defenses. A Rule 60(b) motion cannot substitute for a timely appeal or provide relief from tactical decisions. Additionally, defendants failed to properly support their bias allegations; adverse trial rulings alone do not evidence judicial bias, and they failed to follow required procedures for disqualification motions.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 60(b) motions for fraud require clear and convincing evidence of egregious misconduct and cannot be used to relitigate issues resolved by judgment or substitute for appellate review.
- A party’s tactical decisions—such as refusing discovery, missing hearings without timely notice, or failing to raise counterclaims—cannot be remedied through Rule 60(b) relief from judgment.
- Adverse rulings by a trial judge do not, standing alone, constitute evidence of bias sufficient to support a disqualification motion without proper procedural compliance and supporting affidavits.
- Defendants bear the burden of establishing excusable neglect with evidence sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard when seeking relief for failure to attend hearings.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Vermont’s stringent requirements for obtaining Rule 60(b) relief from judgment on fraud grounds. By requiring “clear and convincing evidence” of “egregious misconduct,” the court establishes a high bar that prevents parties from using post-judgment motions to relitigate cases or advance arguments they chose not to pursue during litigation. The holding reflects judicial efficiency concerns: litigants cannot use Rule 60(b) to undo consequences of their own procedural choices, such as refusing discovery, missing noticed hearings, or failing to raise counterclaims.
The decision also reinforces important appellate jurisdiction principles. A Rule 60(b) motion is not an alternative appeal mechanism, and parties must pursue their appeals within the prescribed timeframe. For practitioners, the case underscores that trial strategy decisions—whether to participate in mediation, attend hearings, and raise all available claims—have lasting consequences that typically cannot be undone through post-judgment motions absent truly egregious judicial misconduct.