Vermont Superior Court Filed 02/12 24

Lamoille nit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

Lamoille Unit 154 Main Street Hyde Park VT 05655

802-888—3887 wwwvermontjudjciaryorg

CIVIL DIVISION

Case No. 24-SC-00112

fifi

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Title: Motion for an Order Restricting Abusive Litigation (Motion: 2) Filer: Paige Cheney Filed Date: February 08, 2024

The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Dodd has filed small court claim for moneythat he claimed that he paid to Defendant Cheney over period of 20 months that Defendant set aside and used to purchase Defendant’s current house. Plaintiff also claims that he contributed to the purchase of bed that is

still in the custody of Defendant.

Defendant Cheney

in her answer denies that she set any money aside from Plaintiff Dodd to

purchase her house. Defendant also states that she has no interest in keeping

the bed and that

Plaintiff maytake it once his lawyer makes arrangements with Defendant to pickit upas established

in the Relief from Abuse Order that Defendant has against Plaintiff.

The Court understands the portion of Defendants answer concerningthe bed to remove

that issue from dispute. Defendant is effectively recognizing Defendant’s claim to the bed and is

turning ownership over to him. Given this concession, there is no damage or live claim on this

issue, and it is dismissed as matter oflaw because there is no controversy or relief t0 be given. Houston Tau/n ofWhitfield, 2007 VT 135, 1] (mem.).

This leaves only Plaintiff’ claim that Defendant, with his permission, allocated his moneyto

house—savings

fund that she then used to purchase her house. While Plaintiffis not alleging any

contract or agreement, he does make out the basic claim for unjust enrichment. MrLarefl v. Gabe],

2020 VT 8, 1] 11 23—26 (holdingthat an unmarried cohabitants mayseek compensation for

investment in real property made under another’s name where the elements of unjust enrichment are

Entry Regarding Motion Page of

24—SC—001 12 Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney

Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney
Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 3

24-SC-00112 Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney

met). Defendant denies these payments and contends that any money she received from Plaintiff 

went to the essential expenses of their joint household. 

Before the Court can address the underlying merits of this claim, however, it must address 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss under 15 V.S.A. § 1182. Defendant has filed a motion and seeks to 

dismiss the present action based on a newly enacted Vermont law to protect individuals against 

abusive litigation. Under 15 V.S.A. § 1181(a), “abusive litigation” exists where: 

(A) The opposing parties have a current or former family or household member 

relationship or there has been a civil order or criminal conviction determining that 

one of the parties stalked or sexually assaulted the other party.

(B) The party who is filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing the litigation has been 

found by a court to have abused, stalked, or sexually assaulted the other party 

pursuant to:

(i) a final order issued pursuant to subchapter 1 of this chapter (abuse prevention 

orders);

(ii) a final order issued pursuant to 12 V.S.A. chapter 178 (orders against stalking or 

sexual assault);

(iii) a final foreign abuse prevention order;

(iv) an order under section 665a of this title (conditions of parent-child contact in 

cases involving domestic violence);

(v) a conviction for domestic assault pursuant to 13 V.S.A. chapter 19, subchapter 6; 

stalking pursuant to 13 V.S.A. chapter 19, subchapter 7; or sexual assault pursuant to 

13 V.S.A. chapter 72; or

(vi) a court determination of probable cause for a charge of domestic assault and the 

court imposed criminal conditions of release pertaining to the safety of the victim, 

which include distance restrictions or restrictions on contact with the victim.

(C) The litigation is being initiated, advanced, or continued primarily for the purpose 

of abusing, harassing, intimidating, threatening, or maintaining contact with the other 

party.

(D) At least one of the following applies:

(i) the claims, allegations, or other legal contentions made in the litigation are not 

warranted by existing law or by a reasonable argument for the extension, 

modification, or reversal of existing law, or the establishment of new law;

(ii) the allegations and other factual contentions made in the litigation are without 

adequate evidentiary support or are unlikely to have evidentiary support after a 

reasonable opportunity for further investigation; or
Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 3

24-SC-00112 Jonathan Dodd v. Paige Cheney

(iii) an issue or issues that are the basis of the litigation have previously been filed in 

one or more other courts or jurisdictions and the actions have been litigated and 

disposed of unfavorably to the party filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing the 

litigation.

15 V.S.A. § 1181(1). 

In the present case, Defendant has established criteria A and B through reference to the 

Relief from Abuse matter between her and Plaintiff at 23-FA-03383. The remaining issues to be 

established are under criteria C and D, which concern whether the intent of the present litigation is 

abusive and whether there is a legal and factual basis to the present litigation. In this case, it is not 

readily determinable whether Plaintiff instituted the present action primarily for the purpose of 

abusing, harassing, intimidating, threatening, or maintaining contact with Defendant. While there is 

some legal basis for the present claim, there is a lack of evidence at this stage to substantiate 

Plaintiff’s allegation. Plaintiff states in his complaint that he has proof in his bank statements of 

these payments. 

Therefore, the Court shall set this matter for a 30-minute hearing in accordance with 15 

V.S.A. § 1182. At this hearing, the Court will take testimony and evidence from the parties in 

support of Plaintiff’s underlying claim as well as Defendant’s contention that there were no such 

overpayments and that Plaintiff’s claims are devoid of any factual support. Parties may also provide 

testimony on the sufficiency of the legal claims, but as indicated above, the basic pleadings do 

appear to have some legal foundation in the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court will rule on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and 

if necessary, on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim. In this respect, the hearing shall also function as a 

final hearing on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim if it survives Defendant’s 15 V.S.A. § 1182 motion to 

dismiss.

So Ordered.

Electronically signed on 2/9/2024 5:35 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________ 

Daniel Richardson

Superior Court Judge