Title: Sandgate School District v. Cate

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Sandgate School District v. Cate (2004-286); 178 Vt. 625; 883 A.2d 774

2005 VT 88

[Filed 28-Jul-2005]

                                        ENTRY ORDER

                                        2005 VT  88

                             SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-286

                                     

    Sandgate School District             }        APPEALED FROM:
                                         }
         v.                              }        Bennington Superior Court
                                         }
    Richard H. Cate,                     }
    Commissioner of Education            }
    and Alan Watts                       }        

       ¶  1. Plaintiff Sandgate School District (Sandgate) appeals a
  decision from the Bennington Superior Court denying its motion for relief
  from judgment.  The original motion for relief was filed after the superior
  court granted the opposing party's motion on the pleadings because Sandgate
  had failed to file a response.  We affirm.

       ¶  2. The facts of the underlying case are as follows:  Defendant
  Alan Watts and his family resided in the Sandgate School District. 
  Sandgate does not maintain its own schools, but issues tuition payments to
  families with children to offset costs incurred for schooling outside of
  the district or in private schools.  After Watts and his wife divorced, the
  children moved from the district with their mother.  Watts' residency
  status within the district became uncertain when he leased the Sandgate
  home in September 2001, retaining only the garage and a room above the
  garage that lacked plumbing.  Watts sold the home to his lessees in March
  2002.  Sandgate refused to issue tuition payments to Watts without proof of
  residency, and Watts appealed to the Department of Education, which ruled
  in Watts' favor.  In September 2003, Sandgate filed suit against Watts and
  Commissioner of Education Richard Cate, alleging that the Department erred
  when it found that Watts was a resident eligible for tuition payments.

       ¶  3. In the three months after Sandgate filed its complaint,
  defendant Cate filed two motions to dismiss on procedural grounds. 
  Sandgate responded to each motion in turn, and each was denied by the
  superior court.  In January 2004, the court issued an entry order requiring
  the parties to file a discovery stipulation regarding deadlines by which
  the parties would file transcripts and legal briefs relating to the case. 
  Neither party made any filings to comply with the court order.  Two days
  after the court's entry order was issued, defendant Cate filed a motion for
  judgment on the pleadings.  Sandgate filed no response to defendant's
  motion.

       ¶  4. In April 2004, the superior court issued an entry order
  granting defendant's motion because of Sandgate's failure to respond.
  Sandgate then filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Vermont
  Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).  Sandgate explained that it did not respond
  to defendant's motion because the court had denied defendant's two previous
  motions.  It believed defendant's motion on the pleadings added no new
  substantive arguments to those presented in the previous motions and had
  assumed that the court would deny defendant's motion.  The court denied
  Sandgate's Rule 60(b) motion without a hearing.  Sandgate then appealed to
  this Court.

       ¶  5. Sandgate maintains that the superior court abused its
  discretion when it declined to grant relief from the judgment and erred by
  not holding a hearing on its Rule 60(b) motion.  Sandgate's original motion
  was made under Rule 60(b) generally;  its brief on appeal appears focused
  on Rule 60(b)(6), but also cites cases that rely on Rule 60(b)(1).  As an
  excuse for its failure to respond to the motion on the pleadings, Sandgate
  points to its incorrect belief that a response was unnecessary.  Sandgate
  also argues that if the trial court's decision is affirmed, it will be
  without a venue in which to argue the merits of its case.  Additionally,
  Sandgate invites this Court to decide the substantive legal issues of the
  original case and clarify an allegedly muddy residence standard under 16
  V.S.A. §  1075(a)(3).  Because we find that the superior court did not err
  in denying Sandgate's Rule 60(b) motion, we decline to examine the other
  issues raised in Sandgate's appeal.

       ¶  6. The standard of review for Rule 60(b) motions is well
  established.  The trial court has discretion when ruling on a motion for
  relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).  Estate of Emilo v. St. Pierre, 146
  Vt. 421, 423,