Case Title: Zambito-Austin v. Jordan

Citation: 169 Vt. 589, 732 A.2d 747

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Zambito-Austin v. Jordan (98-206); 169 Vt. 589; 732 A.2d 747

[Opinion filed 07-May-1999]
[Motion for Reargument denied 14-Jun-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-206

                              APRIL TERM, 1999

Cynthia Zambito-Austin	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Franklin Family Court
                                       }	
Dennis Jordan	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 17-10-95 Frur

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Two Vermont orders, issued in 1983 and 1984, terminated defendant's
  obligation under an  earlier Pennsylvania order to pay child support to
  plaintiff for the parties' minor child.  In 1995,  the Office of Child
  Support brought this action under V.R.C.P. 60(b) for relief from the 
  judgments on the ground that the Vermont court did not have jurisdiction in
  1983 and 1984 to  enter the judgments. The magistrate agreed, vacated the
  two Vermont orders, reinstated a previous  Pennsylvania child support
  order, and calculated an arrearage for over ten years of child support. 
  The family court affirmed the magistrate's decision.  We reverse.

       Although unartfully drafted, defendant's pro se brief argues that the
  V.R.C.P. 60(b) motion  was not filed within a reasonable time after the
  entry of judgment in 1983 and 1984.  He maintains  that (1) some of the
  records to support his case are no longer in existence and (2) he gave up
  all  rights to visitation with his child in exchange for termination of his
  child support obligation,  which cannot be remedied so many years after the
  fact.  The Office of Child Support provides no  grounds under V.R.C.P.
  60(b) for setting aside the 1983 and 1984 orders and presents no  argument
  on the lengthy delay in seeking relief.  It maintains merely that the
  Vermont court had  no subject-matter jurisdiction in 1983 and 1984 to
  vacate or modify the pre-existing Pennsylvania  child support order.

       V.R.C.P. 60(b) governs motions for relief from a final judgment.  The
  rule sets forth six  reasons for which the court may relieve a party from
  final judgment.  For the first three reasons,  the motion must be filed
  within one year after entry of the judgment.  Thus, the Office of Child 
  Support cannot proceed under any of these subsections.  See Donley v.
  Donley, 165 Vt. 619, 619,