Court Opinion

ID: 4268019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-24 00:07:50.801576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:22.347047
License: Public Domain

State of Vermont
                           Superior Court—Environmental Division

======================================================================
                   ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
======================================================================

Town of Waterford v. Bellefeuille                            Docket No. 153-7-09 Vtec
(Post Judgment Enforcement Action)

Title: Motion in Opposition to Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 6)
Filed: July 30, 2012
Filed By: Defendants Paul and Lise Bellefeuille
Reply Filed: Aug. 23, 2012 by Plaintiff, Town of Waterford

    Granted                        Denied                      X Other

        On July 11, 2012, this Court issued a temporary restraining order, pursuant to V.R.C.P
65(a), against Paul and Lise Bellefeuille (Defendants) upon a motion filed by the Town of
Waterford (Town). Defendants challenged the Town’s motion in a response filed on July 30,
2012. Defendants argued that the affidavit supplied by the Town in support of its motion
contained “untruths” and requested that this Court schedule a hearing on the merits of the
order and vacate the temporary restraining order. (Defs.’ Resp. to Mot. for TRO 1, filed July 30,
2012.)
       Under V.R.C.P. Rule 65(a), a temporary restraining order may not last indefinitely, and
the party seeking the order bears the burden of applying for a preliminary injunction if it
wishes the injunctive relief to continue. If the party who obtained the restraining order fails to
subsequently seek a preliminary injunction, the Court “shall dissolve the temporary restraining
order.” V.R.C.P. 65(a).
        The Town in this case acknowledges that, “[i]nasmuch as Defendants’ ‘response’ may
constitute a challenge to the issuance of an injunction, the Town of Waterford stipulates that no
injunction is necessary as the date and time of the anticipated commercial event has passed.”
(Town’s Resp. to Defs.’ Resp. to Mot. for TRO 2, filed Aug. 23, 2012.) The above statement
clearly expresses the Town’s unwillingness to apply for a preliminary injunction to continue the
injunctive relief granted by this Court in the July 11 temporary restraining order. Accordingly,
we hereby DISSOLVE the temporary restraining order issued against Defendants by this Court
on July 11, 2012.
       Because the July 11 temporary restraining order is dissolved, Defendants’ request for a
hearing on the merits of the restraining order is now moot. Thus, we DENY Defendants’
request for a merits hearing.

_________________________________________                             November 1, 2012
       Thomas G. Walsh, Judge                                             Date
Town of Waterford v. Bellefeuille, No. 153-7-09 Vtec (E.O. on Mot. in Opp. to TRO.) (11-1-12)        Pg. 2 of 2.

=============================================================================
Date copies sent: ____________                                               Clerk's Initials: _______
Copies sent to:
 Attorney Edward R. Zuccaro for Plaintiff Town of Waterford
 Defendant Paul Bellefeuille
 Defendant Lise Bellefeuille
 Attorney Steven A. Adler for Intervenors Shari Aldrich, Greg Aldrich, Barbara Heath, Jim Heath, Noreen Newland,
  and Jack Newland