Rule 1.Scope of the rules

Reporter’s Notes—2017 Amendment: Rule 1 is amended to incorporate an amendment to F.R.C.P. 1 effective December 1, 2015. The amendment is intended to encourage increased cooperation among the parties by making clear that parties as well as courts have a responsibility to achieve “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” See Federal Advisory Committee’s Note to 2015 amendment of F.R.C.P. 1.

Reporter’s Notes—2010 Emergency Amendment: Rule 1 is amended to implement Act 154 of 2009, § 7 (Adj. Sess.), An Act Relating to Restructuring of the Judiciary, effective July 1, 2010, which enacted 4 V.S.A. § 30 establishing a single Superior Court of statewide jurisdiction with Civil, Criminal, Family, and Environmental divisions to replace the former Superior, District, Family and Environmental courts. Provisions governing the former courts were repealed or amended by other sections of the Act. (Under §§ 7a, 238a, and 239(c) of the Act, the probate courts do not become the Probate Division of the Superior Court, and relevant repeals do not take effect until February 1, 2011.) By virtue of new 4 V.S.A. § 30(a)(1)(A), the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure apply to cases in the Civil Division. Subparagraph (B) provides that the Civil Rules also apply to all civil matters in the Criminal Division, which, by virtue of new 4 V.S.A. § 32(c)(1)-(13), now has jurisdiction of a variety of proceedings, civil in nature, that were formerly within the jurisdiction of the District Court but are governed by the Civil Rules. See, e.g., V.R.C.P. 80.5, 80.6(i), 80.7, 80.9. Pending a detailed set of amendments to the Civil Rules that would replace all terminology rendered obsolete by the provisions of Act 154, V.R.C.P. 83 is simultaneously amended to provide “global” provisions that indicate the appropriate terminology to replace specific terms in the existing rules.

Reporter’s Notes—2002 Amendment: Rule 1 is amended consistent with the simultaneous abrogation of the District Court Civil Rules. Conforming amendments will be made to the Appendix of Forms. When the District Court Civil Rules were adopted in 1971, the District Court had jurisdiction of civil actions not involving more than $5,000 in which title to real estate was not involved. 4 V.S.A. § 437, added by Act 194 of 1967, § 2. A 1990 and subsequent amendments eliminated that general civil jurisdiction, leaving the District Court with jurisdiction only over seven specific civil proceedings that are administrative or quasi-criminal in nature. See Act 221 of 1989 (Adj. Sess.), § 8; Act 237 of 1993 (Adj. Sess.), § 6; Act 181 of 1995 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; Act 121 of 1997 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; Act 160 of 1997 (Adj. Sess.), § 2. In addition, the original District Court Civil Rules in large measure incorporated the Civil Rules, and others have been amended to do so. See, e.g., D.C.C.R. 40, 58. Accordingly, the general provisions of the District Court Civil Rules are now largely superfluous and represent a potential cause of confusion in practice. The present amendment makes clear that the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure apply of their own force in civil actions in the District Court except where specific exceptions appear in other rules. Such exceptions have been incorporated in simultaneous amendments to the Civil Rules. See 2002 amendments to V.R.C.P 10(a); 13(a), (b), (g); 14(a); 16.1(a), 16.3(a)(1); 18(a); 22, 23(a); 53(a); 57; 81(a); 82; 83(1), (2). Provisions of the District Court Civil Rules covering special proceedings have been adapted simultaneously as Rules of Civil Procedure. See V.R.C.P. 80.5, 80.6, 80.7, 80.8. The Reporter’s Notes to the former District Court rules will continue to provide guidance as to their interpretation.

Reporter’s Notes—1996 Amendment: Rule 1 is amended for conformity with the 1993 amendment of Federal Rule 1. The words “and administered” emphasize the duty of the court to apply the rules in the interest of not only the fair, but the efficient, administration of justice. As the federal Committee Notes add, “As officers of the court, attorneys share this responsibility.”

Reporter’s Notes: This rule, based on Federal Rule 1, establishes in general terms the County Court proceedings in which the rules are applicable. Exceptions to the applicability of the rules are spelled out in Rule 81. The rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court, with the assent of the General Assembly, under the authority of the Rules Enabling Act, 12 V.S.A. § 1. By virtue of Rule 86, the rules become effective on July 1, 1971. The enabling act provides that after the effective date of the rules, “all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect.” The enabling act authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules “for all actions and proceedings in all courts of this state.” Pursuant to this authority, the Court has promulgated District Court Civil Rules for practice in that court and Rules of Appellate Procedure to govern appeals to the Supreme Court in all proceedings, including administrative and probate matters and criminal cases. A separate Advisory Committee is currently at work on Rules of Criminal Procedure for the County Courts and on District Court Criminal Rules. The rules govern proceedings in law and equity by virtue of Act No. 129 of 1969, which abolishes the separate Court of Chancery effective on the effective date of the rules. That Act also vests all former chancery powers in the presiding judges and clerks of the County Courts and authorizes the Supreme Court to merge “the rules for the conduct of actions at law and chancery matters in the county courts.” See 4 V.S.A. §§ 219— 222. This procedural merger is accomplished by Rule 2. The term “equity” is used rather than “chancery” in Rule 1 and elsewhere throughout the rules to make clear that the rules extend to all matters of equitable cognizance properly brought before the County Courts regardless of the scope of the former Chancery Court’s jurisdiction. Abolition of the Chancery Court will work no change in prior practice. The Superior Judges in their capacities as Presiding Judges will act in equity matters with the same flexibility with which they previously acted as chancellors. The rules are based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Federal cases interpreting the Federal Rules are an authoritative source for the interpretation of identical provisions of the Vermont Rules. In this respect, interpretation of the rules follows the principle applied to interpretation of prior statutes which had adopted specific portions of the Federal Rules. See Reed v. Allen, 121 Vt. 202, 153 A.2d 74 (1959); O’Brien v. Comstock Foods, Inc., 123 Vt. 461, 194 A.2d 568 (1963). Note that the rules as written are binding on the County Courts. There is no general provision comparable to former County Court Rule 56 (applicable in chancery by virtue of former Chancery Rule 56), permitting the court to take a case out of the rules. The court has broad power to permit enlargement of time under Rule 6(b), however, and similar specific provisions appear in a number of rules. See, e.g., Rules 30(b)(3), 39(b), 59(c). Moreover, the rules themselves admonish the courts to administer them flexibly in the interests of doing justice. Thus, the final sentence of Rule 1 is of great importance because it establishes a canon of liberal construction for all of the rules. It has been repeatedly relied upon in the federal courts as a guide to interpretation. See, e.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962). Cf. Rules 8(e)(1), (f); 15(b).