Title: LaPlume v. Lavallee

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

LaPlume v. Lavallee (2003-391); 177 Vt. 526; 858 A.2d 255

2004 VT 78

[Filed 18-Aug-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 78

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-391

                               JUNE TERM, 2004

  John LaPlume                         }        APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }        Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }  
  Rachelle Lavallee                    }
                                       }        DOCKET NO. 1554-02 CnSc

                                                Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

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

       ¶  1.  Appellant John LaPlume appeals the superior court's dismissal
  of his small claims case, wherein he sought money damages for various
  personal belongings allegedly retained by appellee Rachelle Lavallee
  following the demise of their relationship.  The superior court determined
  that family court was the appropriate forum to address his claims and
  dismissed LaPlume's complaint.  We reverse and remand.

       ¶  2.  In July 2002, LaPlume stipulated to entry of a relief from
  abuse order against him in Chittenden County Family Court, following a
  hearing on Lavallee's complaint for relief.  The parties waived the
  requirement that the court find that abuse or danger of abuse existed.  The
  order required LaPlume to maintain a distance of 100 feet from Lavallee at
  all times, and that Lavallee "box [LaPlume's] belongings and cause them to
  be delivered by July 31." 

       ¶  3.  Three months later, LaPlume filed a motion in family court to
  enforce the relief from abuse order, contending that Lavallee had failed to
  return all of his property.  The court heard testimony, but dismissed the
  petition without prejudice, explaining to LaPlume that "[t]he purpose of an
  abuse procedure is to stop abuse.  If you have some property disputes I
  think you should resolve that in another forum." 
   
       ¶  4.  LaPlume next filed a complaint in small claims court, citing
  the property return provision of the relief from abuse order and seeking to
  recover "the approximate value of all unreturned property," which he
  estimated at $3500.  In February 2003, the small claims court issued an
  entry order granting LaPlume thirty days to show cause why the proper forum
  for resolution of a relief from abuse order was not the family court that
  had issued the order.  LaPlume argued in response that the family court had
  already declined jurisdiction, and that the matter fit best within the
  small claims court's statutory mandate to provide a "simple, informal and
  inexpensive procedure" for resolution of civil proceedings where claims do
  not exceed $3500.  See 12 V.S.A. _ 5531(a).

       ¶  5.  The small claims court rejected LaPlume's claims and
  dismissed the action.   The court noted that the relief from abuse form
  provides a mechanism for family courts to handle limited personal property
  claims where they are sufficiently linked to relief from abuse proceedings,
  and that small claims courts are ill-suited to resolve conflicts where the
  primary concern remains prevention of  abuse.  Acknowledging that the
  family court had already declined to exercise jurisdiction, the small
  claims court encouraged LaPlume to appeal to the Supreme Court sua sponte,
  waived the filing fee for the appeal and secured counsel for Lavallee, who
  had been unrepresented in the small claims action.  This appeal followed.

       ¶  6.  The issue before this Court is whether the small claims court
  erred in dismissing LaPlume's case on jurisdictional grounds.  We review
  this appeal de novo, Jordan v. State, 166 Vt. 509, 511,