Olio v. Olio
192 Vt. 41
| Vt. | 2012Background
- Final divorce decree entered July 5, 2006, via a stipulated agreement reflecting equal division of assets based on each party’s disclosures.
- Post-divorce, wife sought relief under Rule 60(b), alleging husband hid assets (including a money market account) and misrepresented financials.
- Husband disclosed the previously undisclosed account during a 2010 spousal-maintenance modification proceeding; account belonged to sister/brother-in-law but was used by husband.
- Disclosures in 2006 and during discovery showed discrepancies; undisclosed balance investigated as of March–February 2006, totaling around $56,413.
- Trial court held wife’s Rule 60(b) motion time-barred under 60(b)(3) and did not find fraud-on-the-court; Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, limiting relief due to finality concerns and narrow fraud-on-the-court exception.
- Court acknowledged potential unfair results but reaffirmed Rule 60(b) time limits and the narrow Godin fraud-on-the-court exception
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wife’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion was timely. | Olio | Olio | Untimely; 60(b)(3) time bar applied. |
| Whether the fraud-on-the-court exception under Godin allows 60(b)(6) relief. | Olio argued fraud on the court. | Olio countered with Godin exception. | Not applicable; narrow exception did not apply. |
| Whether the court should allow further discovery or a hearing on the motion. | Discovery/hearing warranted. | Motion time-barred, no hearing required. | No; discovery/hearing not required given time-bar and lack of fraud-on-the-court finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Vaughan, 2012 VT 5 (Vt. 2012) (60(b)6 not substitute for time-barred 60(b)(3) relief)
- Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514 (Vt. 1998) (fraud-on-the-court exception narrow; not for ordinary fraud)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944) (fraud on the court requires egregious misconduct by counsel)
- Perrott v. Johnston, 151 Vt. 464 (Vt. 1989) (fraud on the court not applicable where 60(b)(3) applies)
- Altman v. Altman, 169 Vt. 562 (Vt. 1999) (trial court not required to hold a hearing where undisputed facts)