fair opportunity rule in Vermont

2026Indeed, in father’s subsequent motion to reconsider, he acknowledged that the magistrate had “broad discretion” to issue an order “in an ‘above the guideline’ case.” An issue is preserved for appeal only where it is presented below in a manner which gives the original tribunal “a fair opportunity to rule on it.” State v. Ben-Mont Corp., 163 Vt. 53, 61 (1994).

2026See Doe v. Camacho, 2024 VT 72, ¶ 40 , 220 Vt. 226 , 329 A.3d 156 (declining to reach equitable argument as not preserved for review where not presented below “ ‘with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.’ ” (quoting State v. Ben-Mont Corp., 163 Vt. 53, 61 , 652 A.2d 1004, 1009 (1994))). ¶ 26.

2026See In re White, 172 Vt. 335, 343 (2001) (explaining that “party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it” to properly preserve it for appeal (quotation omitted)).

2026See In re White, 172 Vt. 335, 343 (2001) (“[T]o properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.” (quotation omitted)).

2026For an issue to be preserved, “a party must present the issue to the [body below] with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the [body] a fair opportunity to rule on it.”1 Pratt v. Pallito, 2017 VT 22, ¶ 16 , 204 Vt. 313 (quotation omitted).

2025To preserve an issue for our review on appeal, a party must first present it to the administrative agency “with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the agency a fair opportunity to rule on it.” Pratt v. Pallito, 2017 VT 22, ¶ 16 , 204 Vt. 313 (alteration and quotation omitted).

2026See In re A.M., 2015 VT 109, ¶ 28 , 200 Vt. 189 (explaining that to properly preserve argument for appeal, party “must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule” (quotation omitted)). 2 Moreover, the record does not support father’s argument that his inability to reunify with S.B. was caused by factors beyond his control, including S.B.’s refusal to engage in contact with father.

2026See In re A.M., 2015 VT 109, ¶ 28 , 200 Vt. 189 (explaining that to properly preserve argument for appeal, party “must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule” (quotation omitted)). 2 Moreover, the record does not support father’s argument that his inability to reunify with S.B. was caused by factors beyond his control, including S.B.’s refusal to engage in contact with father.

2016In re C.H., 170 Vt. 603, 604 (2000) (mem.) (stating that argument not raised below is not preserved for appeal); In re D.C., 157 Vt. 659, 660 (1991) (mem.) (explaining that even constitutional arguments must be preserved by presenting “issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the court a fair opportunity to rule on it”).

2016To raise an objection a party must present the issue to the trial court in the first instance to allow that court “a fair opportunity to rule on it.” In re D.C., 157 Vt. 659, 660 , 613 A.2d 191, 191 (1991) (mem.).

2023Inc., 170 Vt. 450, 459 (2000) (“In order to effectively raise an objection, a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner that gives the factfinder a fair opportunity to rule on it.”).

2006See Bull v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., 170 Vt. 450, 459 , 752 A.2d 26, 33 (2000) (“In order to effectively raise an objection, a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner that gives the factfinder a fair opportunity to rule on it.”). ¶ 13.

2016To raise an objection a party must present the issue to the trial court in the first instance to allow that court “a fair opportunity to rule on it.” In re D.C., 157 Vt. 659, 660 , 613 A.2d 191, 191 (1991) (mem.).

1998See In re D.C., 157 Vt. 659, 660 , 613 A.2d 191, 191 (1991) (“In order to effectively raise objection to action by a court, a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the court a fair opportunity to rule on it.”); see also Fitzgerald v. Congleton, 155 Vt. 283, 295 , 583 A.2d 595, 602 (1990) (A “well-settled rule is that party opposing summary judgment motion must inform trial court of reasons, legal and factual, why summary judgment should not be entered, and if it does not do so, and loses the motion, it cannot raise such reasons on appeal.”) (construi

2000See State v. Ringler, 153 Vt. 375, 378-79 , 571 A.2d 668, 670 (1989).

2000See State v. Ringler, 153 Vt. 375, 378-79 , 571 A.2d 668, 670 (1989).

2019Rather, he argues that he did not want daughter to testify because mother allegedly manipulated her testimony. "[T]o preserve an issue for appeal, a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it." Sundstrom v. Sundstrom , 2004 VT 106 , ¶ 21, 177 Vt. 577 , 865 A.2d 358 (mem.) (quotation omitted).

2019Rather, he argues that he did not want daughter to testify because mother allegedly manipulated her testimony. "[T]o preserve an issue for appeal, a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it." Sundstrom v. Sundstrom , 2004 VT 106 , ¶ 21, 177 Vt. 577 , 865 A.2d 358 (mem.) (quotation omitted).

2020See Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2010 VT 98, ¶ 28 , 189 Vt. 518 , 12 A.3d 768 (mem.) (“Issues not raised with specificity and clarity, and in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on them, are . . . waived.”).

2020See Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2010 VT 98, ¶ 28 , 189 Vt. 518 , 12 A.3d 768 (mem.) (“Issues not raised with specificity and clarity, and in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on them, are . . . waived.”).

2026See Doe v. Camacho, 2024 VT 72, ¶ 40 , 220 Vt. 226 , 329 A.3d 156 (declining to reach equitable argument as not preserved for review where not presented below “ ‘with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.’ ” (quoting State v. Ben-Mont Corp., 163 Vt. 53, 61 , 652 A.2d 1004, 1009 (1994))). ¶ 26.

2026See Doe v. Camacho, 2024 VT 72, ¶ 40 , 220 Vt. 226 , 329 A.3d 156 (declining to reach equitable argument as not preserved for review where not presented below “ ‘with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.’ ” (quoting State v. Ben-Mont Corp., 163 Vt. 53, 61 , 652 A.2d 1004, 1009 (1994))). ¶ 26.

2025See Puppolo v. Donovan & O’Connor, LLC, 2011 VT 119, ¶ 13 , 191 Vt. 535 (mem.) (explaining that to preserve issue for appeal, party must “present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it” (quotation omitted)).

2025See Puppolo v. Donovan & O’Connor, LLC, 2011 VT 119, ¶ 13 , 191 Vt. 535 (mem.) (explaining that to preserve issue for appeal, party must “present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it” (quotation omitted)).

2020The “purpose of the preservation rule is to ensure that the original forum is given an opportunity to rule on an issue prior to our review.” In re White, 172 Vt. 335, 343 , 779 A.2d 1264, 1270-71 (2001); see also State v. Griffin, 152 Vt. 41, 44 , 563 A.2d 642, 644 (1989) (explaining that raising issues before trial court gives it an opportunity to take “remedial action” that could “minimize or eliminate any prejudice”). ¶ 17.

2020The “purpose of the preservation rule is to ensure that the original forum is given an opportunity to rule on an issue prior to our review.” In re White, 172 Vt. 335, 343 , 779 A.2d 1264, 1270-71 (2001); see also State v. Griffin, 152 Vt. 41, 44 , 563 A.2d 642, 644 (1989) (explaining that raising issues before trial court gives it an opportunity to take “remedial action” that could “minimize or eliminate any prejudice”). ¶ 17.

2025We have repeatedly “stressed that we will not decide issues that have not been properly preserved for appeal.” State v. Brink, 2008 VT 33, ¶ 6 , 183 Vt. 603 , 949 A.2d 1069 (mem.) “To properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.” State v. Ben-Mont Corp., 163 Vt. 53, 61 , 652 A.2d 1004, 1009 (1994).

2025We have repeatedly “stressed that we will not decide issues that have not been properly preserved for appeal.” State v. Brink, 2008 VT 33, ¶ 6 , 183 Vt. 603 , 949 A.2d 1069 (mem.) “To properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.” State v. Ben-Mont Corp., 163 Vt. 53, 61 , 652 A.2d 1004, 1009 (1994).

2024See Peachey v. Peachey, 2021 VT 78, ¶ 13 , 215 Vt. 570 (“To properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.” (quotation omitted)).

2023Peachey v. Peachey, 2021 VT 78, ¶ 13 , 215 Vt. 570 (“To properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.” (quotation omitted)); see also V.R.C.P. 12(h) (providing that defense of improper 2 venue is waived if not raised in motion to dismiss).

2018It is well established that " '[t]o properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.' " State v. Hinchliffe , 2009 VT 111 , ¶ 32, 186 Vt. 487 , 987 A.2d 988 (quoting State v. Ben-Mont Corp. , 163 Vt. 53 , 61, 652 A.2d 1004 , 1009 (1994) ).

2018It is well established that " '[t]o properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.' " State v. Hinchliffe , 2009 VT 111 , ¶ 32, 186 Vt. 487 , 987 A.2d 988 (quoting State v. Ben-Mont Corp. , 163 Vt. 53 , 61, 652 A.2d 1004 , 1009 (1994) ).

2025Because Holland did not do so, we decline to address this argument as unpreserved. 13 Vt. 558, 563 , 675 A.2d 422, 425 (1996)).

2025See, e.g., In re T.M., 2016 VT 23, ¶ 14 , 201 Vt. 358 (explaining that in reviewing stagnation determination, this Court examines all evidence offered at final termination hearing). 4 ¶ 28, 200 Vt. 189 (explaining that to properly preserve argument for appeal, party “must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule” (quotation omitted)).

2025See, e.g., In re T.M., 2016 VT 23, ¶ 14 , 201 Vt. 358 (explaining that in reviewing stagnation determination, this Court examines all evidence offered at final termination hearing). 4 ¶ 28, 200 Vt. 189 (explaining that to properly preserve argument for appeal, party “must present the issue with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule” (quotation omitted)).

2025To properly preserve an issue for appeal—even one of constitutional magnitude—a parent must raise it below “with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.” In re A.M., 2015 VT 109, ¶ 28 , 200 Vt. 189 (quotation omitted); see In re G.F., 2007 VT 11, ¶ 23 , 181 Vt. 593 (mem.) (declining to address constitutional arguments not raised in trial court).

2025To properly preserve an issue for appeal—even one of constitutional magnitude—a parent must raise it below “with specificity and clarity in a manner which gives the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on it.” In re A.M., 2015 VT 109, ¶ 28 , 200 Vt. 189 (quotation omitted); see In re G.F., 2007 VT 11, ¶ 23 , 181 Vt. 593 (mem.) (declining to address constitutional arguments not raised in trial court).

2024“The very purpose of the preservation rule is to ensure that the original forum is given an opportunity to rule on an issue 3 We note that while defendants did not bring a cross appeal, they were not required to do so given that they were “content with the final order below, leaving [them] nothing to appeal.” Huddleston v. Univ. of Vt., 168 Vt. 249, 255 , 719 A.2d 415, 419 (1998). 15 prior to our review.” Id. at 343 , 779 A.2d at 1270-71 .

2024“The very purpose of the preservation rule is to ensure that the original forum is given an opportunity to rule on an issue 3 We note that while defendants did not bring a cross appeal, they were not required to do so given that they were “content with the final order below, leaving [them] nothing to appeal.” Huddleston v. Univ. of Vt., 168 Vt. 249, 255 , 719 A.2d 415, 419 (1998). 15 prior to our review.” Id. at 343 , 779 A.2d at 1270-71 .

2024When reviewing an inmate disciplinary decision, the court “need find only that there was ‘some evidence’ in order to uphold a conviction.” King v. Gorezyk, 2003 VT 34, 97 , 175 Vt. 220 (quoting LaFaso v, Patrissi, 161 Vt. 46, 49 (1993)).