§ 593. Place for bringing action; caption of divorce action
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, complaints for divorce for any
cause and for affirming or annulling the civil marriage contract shall be brought
in the county in which the parties or one of them resides. Petitions directed to a
Superior judge for temporary orders under the provisions of Vermont Rule of Civil
Procedure 80(c) may be heard within or without the county where the cause is pending
at a place convenient for the parties and the judge hearing the same.
(b) A complaint for divorce or dissolution of a civil union shall be brought in the county
in which the marriage certificate or the civil union certificate was filed if neither
of the parties resides in Vermont.
(c) An action for divorce or annulment may be captioned as follows:
Gerdel v. Gerdel, 313 A.2d 8 (Vt. 1973). · cites it 17דThe court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was not brought in the county where the parties, or one of them, resided as required by 15 V.S.A. § 593. The plaintiff appealed. It is plaintiff’s position that 15 V.”
Ragosta v. State of Vt., 556 F. Supp. 220 (D. Vt. 1981). “The reasoning in that case in no way can be applied by analogy or otherwise to diminish the general grant of jurisdiction over divorce matters conferred upon the Superior Courts by the provisions of 15 V.”
Morse v. Morse, 229 A.2d 228 (Vt. 1967). “He asserts that the lower court had no jurisdiction of the divorce proceeding here in question because the libellant did not have the requisite domicile under 15 V.S.A. §593 to bring her action in Washington County.”
Ragosta v. Ragosta, 465 A.2d 228 (Vt. 1983). “We stated in Gerdel that, with regard to venue provisions contained in 15 V.S.A. § 593, “the availability of the statutory remedy of divorce is closely conditioned upon meeting the procedural requirements outlined in the divorce statutes.”
Conolly v. Conolly, 313 A.2d 12 (Vt. 1973). “The court dismissed the divorce complaint on the ground that it was not filed in the county where the parties, or one of them, resided as required by 15 V.S.A. § 593. The plaintiff appealed. The same issue raised here was also present in Gerdel v.”
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.