(a) A decree of divorce from the bonds of matrimony in the first instance shall be a decree
nisi and shall become absolute at the expiration of 90 days from the entry thereof
but, in its discretion, the court that grants the divorce may fix an earlier date
upon which the decree shall become absolute. If one of the parties dies prior to the
expiration of the nisi period, the decree shall be deemed absolute immediately prior
to death.
(b) Either party may file any post-trial motions under the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure.
The time within which any such motion shall be filed shall run from the date of entry
of the decree of divorce and not from the date the nisi period expires. The court
shall retain jurisdiction to hear and decide the motion after expiration of the nisi
period. A decree of divorce shall constitute a civil judgment under the Vermont Rules
of Civil Procedure.
(c) If the stated term at which the decree nisi was entered has adjourned when a motion
is filed, the presiding judge of the stated term shall have power to hear and determine
the matter and make new decree therein as fully as the court might have done in term
time; but, in the judge’s discretion, the judge may strike off the decree and continue
the cause to the next stated term. (Amended 1969, No. 264 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; 1989, No. 227 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. June 4, 1990; 1995, No. 94 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; 2018, No. 8 (Sp. Sess.), § 13, eff. June 28, 2018.)
Est. of Ladd v. Est. of Ladd, 640 A.2d 29 (Vt. 1994). · cites it 4ד15 V.S.A. § 554(b) (effective June 4, 1990).”
Gazo v. Gazo, 697 A.2d 342 (Vt. 1997). · cites it 2דSee 15 V.S.A. § 554(b). Where, as here, there was no reason given why the evidence could not have been presented at trial, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen.”
Russell v. Russell, 597 A.2d 798 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 2ד60(b)(2) and 15 V.S.A. § 554. This motion alleged that the wife had quit her job due to a worsening diabetic condi *298 tion and needed more maintenance.”
Jones v. Murphy, 772 A.2d 502 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2ד15 V.S.A. § 554. The nisi period for the Jones's divorce order expired in November 1998.”
Caroline Maier v. Siegfried Maier, 2021 VT 88 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 2דIn addition, we note that subsequent to our decision in Ladd the Legislature amended 15 VS.A. § 554 to provide that “[i]f one of the parties dies prior to the expiration of the nisi period, the decree shall be deemed absolute immediately prior to the death.”
Richwagen v. Richwagen, 539 A.2d 540 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 2ד2 15 V.S.A. § 554 was formerly set out as § 553.”
Richwagen v. Richwagen, 568 A.2d 419 (Vt. 1989). “On December 15, 1987, this Court reversed the decision of the superior court, holding that the trial court did not have authority to vacate the first divorce order and reopen the evidence because the expiration of the nisi period had divested the trial court of jurisdiction…”
Richard v. Richard, 2014 VT 58 (Vt. 2014). “See 15 V.S.A. § 554(b) (stating that a divorce decree is a civil judgment under the civil rules); V.”
Angela Blake v. Damon Petrie, 2020 VT 92 (Vt. 2020). “See 15 V.S.A. § 554(b) (“A decree of divorce shall constitute a civil judgment under the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Slansky v. Slansky, 556 A.2d 94 (Vt. 1988). “On September 2, 1986, defendant moved pursuant to V.R.C.P. 60(b) for relief from judgment because he believed “that the stipulation he executed on February 10, 1986, was not the product of consent freely and voluntarily given .”
Downs v. Downs, 549 A.2d 1382 (Vt. 1988). “15 V.S.A. § 554(b) provides in pertinent part that, “at any time before the decree becomes absolute .”
Caroline Maier v. Siegfried Maier, 2021 VT 88 (Vt. 2021). “In addition, we note that subsequent to our decision in Ladd the Legislature amended 15 VS.A. § 554 to provide that “[i]f one of the parties dies prior to the expiration of the nisi period, the decree shall be deemed absolute immediately prior to the death.”
Gazo v. Gazo, 697 A.2d 342 (Vt. 1997). “See 15 V.S.A. § 554(b). Where, as here, there was no reason given why the evidence could not have been presented at trial, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen.”
Richwagen v. Richwagen, 568 A.2d 419 (Vt. 1989). “On December 15, 1987, this Court reversed the decision of the superior court, holding that the trial court did not have authority to vacate the first divorce order and reopen the evidence because the expiration of the nisi period had divested the trial court of jurisdiction…”
Richard v. Richard, 2014 VT 58 (Vt. 2014). “See 15 V.S.A. § 554(b) (stating that a divorce decree is a civil judgment under the civil rules); V.”
Richwagen v. Richwagen, 539 A.2d 540 (Vt. 1987). “2 15 V.S.A. § 554 was formerly set out as § 553.”
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.