287 A.3d 60
Vt.2022Background
- Mother (Massachusetts resident) and father (Vermont resident) are married with two young children; father has a history of domestic violence and was allowed to move with the children to Vermont after Massachusetts custody proceedings.
- Mother filed for an emergency relief-from-abuse (RFA) order in Windham County, Vermont; the family division issued temporary and then final RFA orders protecting mother and the children and awarding custody to mother.
- Father moved to dismiss, arguing Vermont courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because 15 V.S.A. § 1102(c) permits filing only in the county where the plaintiff "resides," and mother is domiciled in Massachusetts; he also argued §1102(c) supersedes the general venue statute 12 V.S.A. § 402(a).
- The family division denied dismissal, treating §1102(c) as an additional venue option and proceeding under §402(a); after contested hearings it issued final RFA orders for mother and the children.
- On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court held §1102(c) is the specific venue provision that controls over §402(a), but construed "resides" not to require domicile and read an implied "household" connection into §1102(c)’s first sentence; mother qualified as a household member and therefore venue and subject-matter jurisdiction were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bacigalupo) | Defendant's Argument (Bacigalupo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1102(c) or general venue statute (§402(a)) governs RFA venue | §1102(c) should be read to allow filing in defendant's county as an additional option; family division venue under §402(a) was appropriate | §1102(c) is the specific statute and controls, displacing §402(a) so plaintiff must meet §1102(c)’s residency requirement | Court: §1102(c) is the specific controlling provision, but mother met §1102(c) requirements (affirmed on different grounds) |
| Whether "resides" in §1102(c) means Vermont domicile | "Resides" should not be read to require domicile; Act is remedial and intended to permit immediate relief | "Resides" is synonymous with domicile, so non-domiciliaries cannot file in Vermont | Court: "resides" does not require domicile; domicile requirement rejected |
| Whether §1102(c) permits filing where the household (or defendant) is located when plaintiff is non-resident | Plaintiff may proceed where she is a household member; §1102(c) should be read to include "household" in first sentence | §1102(c) is ambiguous and does not allow non-resident plaintiffs to file in Vermont | Court: Read §1102(c) liberally; implied "household" in first sentence; plaintiff as household member may file where household is located or where defendant resides |
| Whether family division had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue final RFA order | Jurisdiction proper because plaintiff filed in an appropriate venue under §1102(c) | Lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff was non-resident and did not meet §1102(c) | Court: Affirmed family division; subject-matter jurisdiction existed because mother satisfied §1102(c) as a household member |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.S., 260 A.3d 387 (statutory interpretation and de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Forrett v. Stone, 256 A.3d 585 (plain-meaning first, then consider statutory scheme when ambiguous)
- Raynes v. Rogers, 955 A.2d 1135 (Abuse Prevention Act remedial purpose; liberally construed for immediate relief)
- Fox v. Fox, 106 A.3d 919 (court cannot issue final RFA order without personal jurisdiction over defendant)
- Town of Brattleboro v. Garfield, 904 A.2d 1157 (specific statute controls over general statute)
- Gerdel v. Gerdel, 313 A.2d 8 (specific venue statute cannot lightly be ignored)
- In re J.L., 928 A.2d 474 (appellate court may affirm on any legal basis supported by record)
- Conley v. Crisafulli, 999 A.2d 677 (domicile inquiries are troublesome; distinguish domicile from residence)
- In re Albert, 954 A.2d 1281 (presume legislature avoids absurd results)
- State v. Schenk, 190 A.3d 820 (judicial policy to resolve statutory cases on nonconstitutional grounds when possible)