VermontSuperiorCourtFiled02/1224Lamoillenit

## VERMONTSUPERIOR

## COURTLamoille

### Unit154

### MainStreet

### HydePark

## VT05655802-888—3887

### wwwvermontjudjciaryorg

## CIVILDIVISIONCase

### No.24-SC-00112fifi

# ENTRYREGARDINGMOTIONTitle:Motionforan

### OrderRestricting

### AbusiveLitigation(Motion:2)

### Filer:Paige

### Cheney

### FiledDate:February08,2024

### Themotionis

## GRANTEDIN

### PART.Plaintiff

### Doddhasfiledsmall

### courtclaim

### formoneythatheclaimedthathepaidto

### DefendantCheneyoverperiod

### of20

### monthsthat

### Defendantsetasideandusedtopurchase

### Defendant’scurrenthouse.

### Plaintiffalsoclaimsthathe

### contributedtothepurchase

### ofbedthatisstill

### inthe

### custody

### ofDefendant.

### DefendantCheney

### inheranswerdeniesthatshesetany

### moneyaside

### from

### Plaintiff

### Doddtopurchaseherhouse.

### Defendantalsostatesthatshehasnointerest

### inkeepingthebedandthat

### Plaintiffmaytake

### itoncehislawyermakesarrangements

### withDefendantto

### pick

### itupasestablished

### inthe

### Relieffrom

### AbuseOrderthat

### Defendanthasagainst

### Plaintiff.

### TheCourtunderstandsthe

### portion

### ofDefendantsanswer

### concerningthebedtoremovethatissue

### fromdispute.

### Defendantis

### effectively

### recognizing

### Defendant’sclaimtothebedandis

### turningownershipovertohim.

### Giventhis

### concession,thereisnodamageor

### liveclaimonthisissue,and

### itisdismissedasmatter

### oflawbecausethereisno

### controversyor

### relieft0be

### given.HoustonTau/nofWhitfield,2007

## VT135,1](mem.).

### Thisleaves

### only

### Plaintiff’claimthat

### Defendant,

### withhis

### permission,allocatedhis

### moneytohouse—savings

### fundthatshethenusedtopurchaseherhouse.

### While

### Plaintiffis

### notallegingany

### contractoragreement,hedoesmakeoutthebasicclaim

### forunjustenrichment.MrLareflv.Gabe],2020

## VT8,1]1123—26

### (holdingthatanunmarriedcohabitants

### mayseek

### compensation

### forinvestment

### inreal

### propertymadeunderanother’snamewheretheelements

### ofunjust

### enrichmentareEntryRegardingMotionPageof24—SC—00112JonathanDoddv.PaigeCheney

## Jonathan

## Doddv.

### PaigeCheneyEntry 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; orEntry 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