Deveneau v. Weilt, No. 321-9-12 Bncv (Wesley, J., Aug. 29, 2014).

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

Deveneau vs. Weilt et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Count 1, Personal Injury - Auto (321-9-12 Bncv)

Count 2, Personal Injury - Auto (321-9-12 Bncv)

Title: Motion Entry of final judgment (Motion 14)

Filer: Brian Toomey

Attorney: Leo A. Bisson

Filed Date: August 18, 2014

No response filed

Title: Motion PERMISSION TO APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY ORDER (Motion 15)

Filer: William Deveneau

Attorney: Ronald F. Wright

Filed Date: August 22, 2014

The motions are DENIED.

Decision and Order

Denying Defendant’s Motion for Final Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to take 

an Interlocutory Appeal

Plaintiff sues Defendants for negligence based on damages he sustained when his 

vehicle collided with a horse. Plaintiff sues the owner and keeper of the horse, Susan Wielt, and 

the landowner, Brian Toomey. On August 12, 2014, the Court issued summary judgment to 

Brian Toomey because he had no duty to prevent Ms. Wielt’s horse from escaping. Brian 

Toomey now seeks an order of final judgment. Plaintiff requests permission to take an 

interlocutory appeal.

Under V.R.C.P. 54(b), the Court may issue final judgment for one party. 

[T]here are three prerequisites to directing an entry of judgment under V.R.C.P. 

54(b): (1) there must be multiple parties or multiple claims for relief, (2) at least 

one claim or the rights and liabilities of at least one party must be finally 

decided, and (3) the court must find that there is no just cause for delaying the 

appeal. 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Bennington Unit Docket No. 321-9-12 Bncv
Kelly v. Lord, 173 Vt. 21, 31 (2001). Although there are multiple parties and the Court decided 

all issues related to Mr. Toomey, the Court will not issue final judgment because there is just 

cause for delaying the appeal. Allowing part of this case to go up to appeal could result in two 

trials if the Court is reversed. The Court favors Vermont’s public policy of not allowing 

piecemeal appeals. See In re Pyramid Co., 141 Vt. 294, 305–06 (1982). 

The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for permission to take an interlocutory appeal. 

Under V.R.A.P. 5(b), a party must seek permission with the superior court to take an 

interlocutory appeal. To grant permission, the Court must determine that an immediate appeal 

will advance the litigation. V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1)(B). In this case, the Court again fears a piecemeal 

appeal and two trials. See Pyramid, 141 Vt. at 305–06 . An appeal before trial could result in 

two trials and confuse issues of liabilities and damages. 

Order

The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Final Judgment. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Permission to take an interlocutory appeal. 

Electronically signed on August 29, 2014 at 01:19 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d).

______________________________________

John P. Wesley

Superior Court Judge

Notifications:

Ronald F. Wright (ERN 5341), Attorney for Plaintiff William Deveneau

Michael J. Gannon (ERN 3738), Attorney for Defendant Susan Weilt

Leo A. Bisson (ERN 2369), Attorney for Defendant Brian Toomey

Kerby John Wright (ERN N/A), Attorney for party 1 Co-Counsel

wesley