Bevins v. King, 513 A.2d 41 (Vt. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Bevins v. King, 513 A.2d 41 (Vt. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Commissioner of Labor, State of Vermont v. American Empire General Contracting Corp. (vt, 2025-04-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commissioner of Labor, State of Vermont v. American Empire General Contracting Corp.
Vt. · 2025 · confidence medium
Co., 140 Vt. 339, 343 (1981), abrogated in part on independent grounds by Bevins v. King, 147 Vt. 645, 645-46 (1986) (mem.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Laws
Vt. · 2007 · confidence medium
In re Currier, 147 Vt. 645, 645 , 513 A.2d 41, 41 (1986) (mem.) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 (1963)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Laws
Vt. · 2007 · confidence medium
In re Currier, 147 Vt. 645, 645 , 513 A.2d 41, 41 (1986) (mem.) (citing Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jack C. Keir, Inc. v. Robinson & Keir Partnership
Vt. · 1988 · confidence medium
The order was not circulated through the Assistant Judges but sent directly down to the Clerk for filing and processing.” Once an appeal is perfected to this Court, the proper procedure for correcting a defective order arising from oversight or omission is by remand to the trial court, V.R.C.P. 60(a), for a “determination as to whether the findings reflect the beliefs of the assistant judge who participated at trial.” Bevins v. King, 147 Vt. 645, 646 , 513 A.2d 41, 41 (1986) (mem.).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Edwin A. Towne, Jr. (2×)
Vt. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Provencher , 128 Vt. 586 , 591, 270 A.2d 147 , 150 (1970) (Holden, C.J., concurring) (suggesting, with concurrence of all members of Court, that § 7134 has "the same force and effect" as corresponding federal statute, and identifying three-part Sanders framework for evaluating subsequent petitions); see also In re Currier , 147 Vt. 645 , 645, 513 A.2d 41 , 41 (1986) (mem.) (applying three-part test and concluding that petitioner had failed to show that ends of justice would be served by permitting redetermination of petitioner's claim); Woodmansee v. Stoneman , 132 Vt. 107 , 110,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lloyd and Gyneth BEVINS
v.
Harrison and Madeline KING
No. 84-439.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
May 22, 1986.
513 A.2d 41
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Trial was held before a superior judge and one assistant judge. Defendants allege that the judgment order rendered is invalid because the findings were not signed by the assistant judge who participated at trial. There is no question that the superior court had the authority to hear the matter and return findings. See 4 V.S.A. § 112(c) (“If two assistant judges are not available, the court shall consist of one presiding judge and one assistant judge.”). Moreover, V.R.C.P. 58 was amended in 1972 to charge the presiding judge with the technical responsibilities regarding judgments which were formerly borne by the clerk. See Reporter’s Notes, V.R.C.P. 58. The rule now provides that “[t]he Presiding Judge shall promptly approve and sign the judgment, and the clerk shall thereupon enter it.” V.R.C.P. 58 (emphasis added). Thus, the question reduces to whether the assistant judge’s failure to sign the findings indicates a disagreement between the presiding judge and the assistant judge as to the decision rendered. See 4 V.S.A. § 112(c) (“In the event that court is being held by the presiding judge and one assistant judge, and they do not agree on a decision, a mistrial shall be declared.”).

In Bennett Estate v. Travelers Insurance Co., 140 Vt. 339, 344-45, 438 A.2d 380, 383 (1981), this Court held[*646] that, where the defect in a judgment stems from an assistant judge’s failure to sign findings, the party challenging the judgment has the burden of demonstrating that such failure signals a disagreement among the judges. We now see the inherent unfairness of this position and how it can work to undermine the statutory authority of the assistant judges. Questions of fact are for the court. See 4 V.S.A. § 112(b). Accordingly, this case must be remanded to the superior court for determination as to whether the findings reflect the beliefs of the assistant judge who participated at trial. To the extent that there is case law to the contrary, it is overruled.

Cause remanded to the superior court for consideration by assistant judge who participated at trial. Jurisdiction retained in this Court for thirty days.