Vermont Statutes Annotated
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 553 (2026)
Collusion
✓ 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 002 : DIVORCE
(Cite as: 15 V.S.A. § 553)-
§ 553. Collusion
The term “collusion,” as used in divorce actions, shall not be construed to include conversations or negotiations of the parties carried on in good faith in an effort to resolve their marital difficulties, where the purpose or result of the conference is not to hinder or obstruct justice or to suppress evidence as to the merits of the case.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1964–2001 · leading case: Ford v. Ford, 209 A.2d 316 (Vt. 1965).
Ford v. Ford, 209 A.2d 316 (Vt. 1965). “The first question of law presented to us is the interpretation of 15 V.S.A. §553 (c), which admittedly is the basis for the presiding judge’s order in this cause as well as his individual jurisdiction over the motion.”
Duke v. Duke, 442 A.2d 460 (Vt. 1982). “15 V.S.A. § 553; Clifford v. Clifford, 133 Vt.”
White v. White, 450 A.2d 1108 (Vt. 1982). “It is not uncommon for a husband and wife who face divorce proceedings to enter into a stipulation on matters of property distribution, alimony and child support, in the hope that whatever agreement they can reach together will be preferable to that which might be imposed by a…”
Morissette v. Morissette, 463 A.2d 1384 (Vt. 1983). “15 V.S.A. § 553. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in accepting the parties’ stipulation as providing for a fair and equitable distribution of the property included therein.”
Kim v. Kim, 790 A.2d 381 (Vt. 2001). “2d 1384, 1388 (1983); see 15 V.S.A. § 553. Such agreements are “honored under the ordinary rules of contract.”
Brown v. Brown, 365 A.2d 248 (Vt. 1976). “In cases where the parties have made their own arrangements with respect to alimony, as permitted by 15 V.S.A. § 553, the agreements have found acceptance by the court.”
Clifford v. Clifford, 340 A.2d 60 (Vt. 1975). “15 V.S.A. § 553. When the parties contract, as they did here, their agreements are held to be final in the absence of proof of the elements set forth in Hudson v.”
Goslant v. Goslant, 290 A.2d 22 (Vt. 1972). “He sought this relief under the provisions of subsection (b) of 15 V.S.A. § 553 which provides: “Upon its own motion or on application of either party, at any time before the decree becomes absolute and upon such notice as the presiding judge shall direct, the court may reopen…”
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 333 A.2d 94 (Vt. 1975). “However, when the parties make their own arrangements as to property settlement and support provisions, as they are permitted to do by 15 V.S.A. § 553, and their stipulations find acceptance with the court, the need for later alteration should have especially explicit exposition.”
Wellington v. Wellington, 205 A.2d 568 (Vt. 1964). “§2353 is equally applicable to judgments in divorce causes as it is to judgments in other causes.”
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.