Court Opinion

ID: 9649406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:52:23.873831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:10.463831
License: Public Domain

Daley, J.,
Dissenting. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. The defendant, in my opinion, received all notice to which he was entitled under V.R.C.P. 80 (b). This is not a case where we have required a trial court rejecting the provisions of a stipulation to give the parties notice of its action' and opportunity to be heard. Martin v. Martin, 127 Vt. 313, 314, 248 A.2d 723 (1968).
I do not accept the contention of the defendant that he was entitled to believe alimony would not be in issue because of the *372lack of a prayer for such relief in plaintiff’s complaint. Our statutory law relative to divorce actions as well as our rules of civil procedure in the same regard contain no such requirements.
The question of alimony was before the court as legal incident to the granting of a divorce. See Loeb v. Loeb, 118 Vt. 472, 485, 114 A.2d 518 (1955); 15 V.S.A. § 754. The record shows no waiver by the plaintiff. The financial condition of both parties as well as their respective needs was the subject of inquiry.
The statute 15 V.S.A. § 754 is in itself legal notice that alimony may be awarded in a given case such as we have here. The service of the complaint, in my opinion, placed the defendant upon notice of all matters legally incident to the divorce, including child support and alimony.
In all fairness to the courts as well as future parties, V.R.C.P. 80(b) should be amended so as to prevent a recurrence of what happened here. The defendant, having been present in court with counsel, had notice and opportunity to be heard. I would affirm.