Vermont Statutes Annotated
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5652 (2026)
Validity of arbitration agreements
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Subchapter 001 : GENERAL PROVISIONS
(Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 5652)-
§ 5652. Validity of arbitration agreements
(a) General rule. Unless otherwise provided in the agreement, a written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties creates a duty to arbitrate, and is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of a contract.
(b) Required provision. No agreement to arbitrate is enforceable unless accompanied by or containing a written acknowledgment of arbitration signed by each of the parties or their representatives. When contained in the same document as the agreement to arbitrate, that acknowledgment shall be displayed prominently. The acknowledgment shall provide substantially as follows:
“ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ARBITRATION.
I understand that (this agreement/my agreement with of ) contains an agreement to arbitrate. After signing (this/that) document, I understand that I will not be able to bring a lawsuit concerning any dispute that may arise which is covered by the arbitration agreement, unless it involves a question of constitutional or civil rights. Instead, I agree to submit any such dispute to an impartial arbitrator.” (Added 1985, No. 95, § 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Glassford v. BrickKicker & GDM Home Servs., Inc., 2011 VT 118, 35 A.3d 1044.
Glassford v. BrickKicker & GDM Home Servs., Inc., 2011 VT 118, 35 A.3d 1044. “” See 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a) (stating that arbitration agreements are “valid, enforceable, and irrevocable” unless otherwise void as contracts).”
Colin Masseau v. Scott Luck, 2021 VT 9, 214 VT 196. “3d at 774-75 (“If the central 3 Since we conclude that the notice and acknowledgement requirement is preempted, we do not address whether the contract here provided notice sufficient to meet the requirements of 12 V.S.A. § 5652. 10 purpose of the contract is tainted .”
Lamell Lumber Corp. v. NEWSTRESS INTERN., 2007 VT 83, 938 A.2d 1215. “" 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a). As that section implies, Vermont law and public policy strongly favor arbitration as an alternative to litigation for the "efficient resolution of disputes.”
Northfield Sch. Bd. v. Washington South Educ. Ass'n & Paul Clayton, 2019 VT 26, 210 A.3d 460. “This Court, again, declines to transplant words from one subsection and insert them into another.”
Joder Bldg. Corp. v. Lewis, 569 A.2d 471 (Vt. 1989). “When plaintiff moved in the superior court to confirm the award, defendants resisted, claiming for the first time that they never signed the acknowledgement required by 12 V.S.A. § 5652(b); that the arbitrators’ failure to postpone the hearing prevented confirmation of the award…”
Clayton v. Unsworth, 2010 VT 84, 8 A.3d 1066. “See 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a) (“[A] written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration .”
State v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2008 VT 11, 945 A.2d 887. “”); 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a) (“[A] provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties creates a duty to arbitrate, and is valid, enforceable and irrevocable .”
LaFrance Architect v. Point Five Dev. South Burlington, LLC, 91 A.3d 364 (Vt. 2013). “Therefore, it is unnecessary to remand the case to the trial court, since defendant has no meritorious defenses and cannot prevail under Rule 60(b) as a matter of law.”
Lamell Lumber Corp. v. Newstress Int'l, Inc., 182 Vt. 282 (2007). “” 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a). As that section implies, Vermont law and public policy strongly favor arbitration as an alternative to litigation for the “efficient resolution of disputes.”
MacDonald v. Roderick, 603 A.2d 369 (Vt. 1992). “12 V.S.A. § 5652(b) (agreement to arbitrate is not enforceable unless it contains an acknowledgement of arbitration that follows “substantially” the statutory model).”
LaFrance Architect v. Point Five Dev. South Burlington, LLC, 2013 VT 115, 91 A.3d 364. “Therefore, it is unnecessary to remand the case to the trial court, since defendant has no meritorious defenses and cannot prevail under Rule 60(b) as a matter of law. ¶ 23. The competing interests underlying Rule 60, supra ¶¶ 9-10, are further complicated in this case by the…”
macrery v. foley, No. 23-cv-4586 (Vt. Super. Ct. Mar. 15, 2024). “12 V.S.A. § 5652. It is uncontested that the parties’ lease in this case contains no such Acknowledgement and is unenforceable as a binding Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 6 23—CV—04586 Lea Ann Macrery v.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5652(a): 10 cases
Glassford v. BrickKicker & GDM Home Servs., Inc., 2011 VT 118, 35 A.3d 1044. “” See 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a) (stating that arbitration agreements are “valid, enforceable, and irrevocable” unless otherwise void as contracts).”
Lamell Lumber Corp. v. NEWSTRESS INTERN., 2007 VT 83, 938 A.2d 1215. “" 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a). As that section implies, Vermont law and public policy strongly favor arbitration as an alternative to litigation for the "efficient resolution of disputes.”
Clayton v. Unsworth, 2010 VT 84, 8 A.3d 1066. “See 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a) (“[A] written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration .”
State v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2008 VT 11, 945 A.2d 887. “”); 12 V.S.A. § 5652(a) (“[A] provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties creates a duty to arbitrate, and is valid, enforceable and irrevocable .”
LaFrance Architect v. Point Five Dev. South Burlington, LLC, 91 A.3d 364 (Vt. 2013). “Therefore, it is unnecessary to remand the case to the trial court, since defendant has no meritorious defenses and cannot prevail under Rule 60(b) as a matter of law.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5652(b): 4 cases
Joder Bldg. Corp. v. Lewis, 569 A.2d 471 (Vt. 1989). “When plaintiff moved in the superior court to confirm the award, defendants resisted, claiming for the first time that they never signed the acknowledgement required by 12 V.S.A. § 5652(b); that the arbitrators’ failure to postpone the hearing prevented confirmation of the award…”
Colin Masseau v. Scott Luck, 2021 VT 9, 214 VT 196. “3d at 774-75 (“If the central 3 Since we conclude that the notice and acknowledgement requirement is preempted, we do not address whether the contract here provided notice sufficient to meet the requirements of 12 V.S.A. § 5652. 10 purpose of the contract is tainted .”
MacDonald v. Roderick, 603 A.2d 369 (Vt. 1992). “12 V.S.A. § 5652(b) (agreement to arbitrate is not enforceable unless it contains an acknowledgement of arbitration that follows “substantially” the statutory model).”
Masseau v. Luck, No. 616-6-17 Cncv (Vt. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.