Background
In January 2025, Richard Welch Jr. filed a civil lawsuit against Nicole Foster and Brian Bishop, alleging they made false reports of child abuse and sexual abuse to the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) and in relief-from-abuse (RFA) petitions. Welch claimed these reports — made in 2017 and 2018 — caused him to lose his job and suffer physical and emotional harm including hypertension, sleep apnea, and mental anguish. He sought monetary damages for reputational and financial losses.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Vermont’s three-year statute of limitations for defamation barred any claims arising from statements made in 2017 and 2018. Their statement of undisputed facts established that Welch was aware of the allegations at the time DCF investigated. The facts also disclosed that Welch is currently incarcerated and awaiting sentencing following his conviction for aggravated sexual assault against the child who was the subject of the complaints. Welch did not file a counter-statement of undisputed facts, so the civil division accepted defendants’ facts as true and granted summary judgment.
Welch appealed, arguing the trial court erred by ruling without a hearing and by relying on erroneous facts. He also raised procedural objections, including a claim that the court violated Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 33(b) by not providing oral argument — a rule that applies only to Supreme Court proceedings, not the civil division.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that no hearing was required before a civil division rules on summary judgment under V.R.C.P. 56, citing Lussier v. Truax, 161 Vt. 611 (1993). The panel also rejected Welch’s procedural arguments, noting that V.R.A.P. 33(b) governs Supreme Court appellate procedure and has no application to civil division proceedings.
On the merits, the court held that the three-year limitations period under 12 V.S.A. § 512(3) and (4) had plainly expired. Because Welch admitted knowing of the defendants’ statements and experiencing harm in 2017 and 2018, the clock began running at that time, and his 2025 complaint was filed approximately four years too late. The court also declined to credit Welch’s unsupported assertions that his sleep apnea constituted ongoing harm or that text messages from defendants created a continuing cause of action.
The panel further clarified that Welch’s “clearly erroneous” argument misunderstood the nature of summary judgment: a court decides such motions on undisputed facts rather than making credibility-based factual findings, and because Welch failed to contest defendants’ statement of facts, those facts stood unchallenged as the basis for the ruling.
Key Takeaways
- Vermont’s three-year statute of limitations for defamation (12 V.S.A. § 512(3)) runs from when the plaintiff discovers injury; a plaintiff who knew of allegedly defamatory statements in 2017–2018 cannot file suit in 2025.
- A civil division court is not required to hold a hearing before ruling on a motion for summary judgment under V.R.C.P. 56.
- A party who fails to file a counter-statement of undisputed facts in response to a summary judgment motion allows the moving party’s facts to be accepted as true for purposes of the motion.
- This decision is an unpublished three-justice panel entry order and carries no precedential weight before any Vermont tribunal.
Why It Matters
The case is a straightforward application of Vermont’s defamation limitations period and summary judgment procedure, but it illustrates a recurring pitfall for pro se litigants: failing to respond to a statement of undisputed material facts is effectively a concession of those facts. Welch’s failure to submit a counter-statement left him with no procedural footing to contest the timeline that doomed his claims.
The case also arises in an unusual posture — the plaintiff is a convicted sex offender suing the very individuals whose abuse reports preceded his prosecution. While the court’s analysis is confined to limitations and procedure, the underlying conviction formed part of the undisputed factual record, underscoring the difficulty of defamation claims where the alleged “false” statements are later corroborated by a criminal conviction.