The procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to 12 V.S.A. §§ 4711-4715 in an action in a superior court shall be in accordance with these rules, and the right to trial by jury may be demanded under the circumstances and in the manner provided in Rules 38 and 39. The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar.
Rule 57.Declaratory judgments
Group VII: Judgment · Last amended July 1, 2002 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 57 folds Vermont's statutory declaratory-judgment procedure into the civil rules, preserves the right to a jury trial when the underlying claim would carry one, and lets the court move a declaratory action ahead on its calendar.
Full Text of Rule 57
Notes
Reporter’s Notes—2002 Amendment: Rule 57 is amended to reflect the abrogation of the District Court Civil Rules and the resulting applicability of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure to District Court civil actions. See Reporter’s Notes to simultaneous amendment of Rule 1. Declaratory judgment actions were not permitted in the District Court under the former District Court Civil Rules.
Reporter’s Notes: This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule 57. The rule merely implements Vermont’s existing statutory declaratory judgment procedure, found in 12 V.S.A. §§ 4711- 4725, which is incorporated in the rule by reference. The provision of the rule that existence of another remedy does not preclude declaratory relief is in accord with Vermont case law. See Gifford Memorial Hospital v. Randolph, 119 Vt. 66, 118 A.2d 480 (1955); Flanders Lumber & Building Supply Co., Inc., v. Town of Milton, 128 Vt. 38, 258 A.2d 804 (1969). The grant of relief is discretionary, however, and the court may be reluctant to interfere with the normal prerogative of an injured party to bring suit at a time and place of his choosing. See Cunningham Brothers v. Bail, 407 F.2d 1165 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 395 U.S. 959; Sun Oil Co. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 108 F. Supp. 280 (E.D.Pa. 1952), aff’d. 203 F.2d 957 (3d Cir. 1953); James, Civil Procedure 30-31 (1965). Thus, declaratory relief might be denied on an ordinary tort claim in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as multiple claims in a mass tort. But cf. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 111 F. Supp. 80 (D.N.J. 1953). Under the rule, declaratory relief is available in any kind of action, but, the right to trial by jury depends on whether the underlying claim as to which a declaration is sought is legal or equitable in nature. Only those claims in which a jury would have been required if affirmative relief had been sought merit a jury when declaratory relief is the object of the action. See 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1267 (Wright ed. 1958). 12 V.S.A. § 4719 should be understood as preserving the right to jury trial on issues of fact only in such circumstances. Cf. Reporter’s Notes to Rule 39.
Amendment History
Amended Mar. 6, 2002, eff. July 1, 2002.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 57 doesn't create a new cause of action; it channels the declaratory-judgment procedure already found in 12 V.S.A. Sections 4711-4715 through the ordinary civil rules. A party seeking a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations follows the same rules that govern any other civil action in superior court. The right to demand a jury trial rides along with the nature of the underlying claim: if the dispute is one where a jury would be available had the party sought coercive relief instead of a declaration, the jury demand can be made under the circumstances and in the manner set out in Rules 38 and 39.
The rule also removes one potential obstacle to declaratory relief: the fact that another adequate remedy exists doesn't by itself prevent a court from granting a declaratory judgment where that relief is appropriate. That doesn't mean declaratory relief is available whenever asked for -- granting it remains a matter for the court's judgment, weighing whether a declaration will settle the controversy usefully given the alternatives.
Because declaratory actions often exist to resolve uncertainty before it causes further harm, the rule lets the court order a speedy hearing and advance the case on the calendar ahead of other matters, recognizing that the value of a declaration can fade if it comes too late to guide the parties' conduct.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Vermont have a separate procedure for declaratory judgment actions?
Not a separate one. Rule 57 directs that the procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment under 12 V.S.A. Sections 4711-4715 in superior court follows these civil rules, the same as any other action.
Can a party get a jury trial in a declaratory judgment action?
Yes, if the underlying claim is one that would carry a jury right had coercive relief been sought instead. The demand can be made under the circumstances and manner provided in Rules 38 and 39.
Does having another remedy available stop a party from seeking a declaratory judgment?
No. Rule 57 states that the existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where that relief is appropriate.
Can a court move a declaratory judgment case ahead of others on the docket?
Yes. The rule lets the court order a speedy hearing of a declaratory judgment action and advance it on the calendar.
Is a court required to grant declaratory relief whenever a party asks for it?
No. The rule allows declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate, which leaves the ultimate decision to the court's judgment based on the circumstances of the case.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Reporter's Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Vermont Supreme Court. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: declaratory judgment Vermontdeclaratory relief procedurespeedy hearing declaratory action12 VSA 4711 procedureVRCP 57