Background
Richard Welch, Jr., representing himself, sued Dylan Bowen for damages based on allegations that Bowen took Welch’s property and thereby violated Vermont statutes concerning possession of stolen property and operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent. Welch also referred to alleged violations of related federal criminal laws. He had filed a similar action against Bowen in December 2025 that was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Bowen moved to dismiss the March 2026 complaint. The civil division granted the motion, reasoning that Welch lacked authority to initiate criminal proceedings and had not identified a civil cause of action or alleged facts satisfying the elements of any common-law tort. The court also concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over claims sounding in criminal law.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Welch failed to carry his appellate burden because his filing did not identify any error in the trial court’s decision. Instead, Welch submitted what appeared to be a copy of his complaint and an additional page identifying and valuing certain property.
The Court explained that an appellant must show how the lower court erred and present an argument identifying the issues, preservation, supporting reasons, authorities, statutes, and relevant portions of the record. Because Welch offered no such claim of error, the Court declined to search the record for one and affirmed the dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must identify and explain a claimed error by the trial court; merely resubmitting the complaint does not satisfy that burden.
- A private litigant cannot initiate a Vermont criminal prosecution, and alleged violations of criminal statutes do not alone establish a civil damages claim.
- A plaintiff relying on a possible common-law tort must identify the civil claim and plead facts satisfying its elements.
Why It Matters
The entry order underscores that self-represented appellants remain responsible for presenting a developed appellate argument. When an appellant identifies no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court will not independently comb the record to construct one.
The decision also illustrates the distinction between criminal enforcement and private civil litigation: allegations framed solely as criminal violations do not provide a private plaintiff with authority to prosecute or, without a recognized civil cause of action and supporting facts, recover damages.