Rule 58.Entry of judgment

Reporter’s Notes—2018 Amendment: Rule 58(d) is amended to extend its 5-day time period to 7 days consistent with the simultaneous “day is a day” amendments to V.R.C.P. 6.

Reporter’s Notes—2006 Amendment: Rule 58 is amended simultaneously with V.R.A.P. 4 for consistency with the 2002 amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure. Amended V.R.C.P. 58 retains the style of the former Vermont rule but embodies the principal elements of the federal amendments. The rule has been divided into subdivisions for greater clarity as well as for consistency with the federal amendments. Rule 58(a) carries forward the requirement of the former rule that a judgment be set forth in a separate document but follows amended F.R.C.P. 58(a) in excepting from the requirement those motions that terminate the running of the time for appeal under amended V.R.A.P. 4(b)(1)-(7). See Reporter’s Notes to 2002 Amendment of V.R.C.P. 58; Federal Advisory Committee’s Note to 2002 amendment of F.R.C.P. 58(a). Rule 58(b) adapts provisions of amended F.R.C.P. 58 to make clear that a judgment is “effective” when it is entered on the docket and when a separate judgment document, if required by Rule 58(a), is created. In a case where such a document is required but, for whatever reason, has not been created within 150 days of the clerk’s entry of the judgment on the docket, the judgment becomes effective automatically. See further discussion in Reporter’s Notes to 2006 Amendment adding V.R.A.P. 4(e)(1). The term “effective” was eliminated from the federal rule because of difficulties in applying it in certain cases such as interlocutory appeals that have not been a problem in Vermont practice. See Federal Advisory Committee’s Note to 2002 amendment of F.R.C.P. 58(b). The amended Vermont rule carries forward the requirement of the former rule that the Presiding Judge approve the form of judgment before entry regardless of the type of judgment, in contrast to the provision of the federal rule that the clerk is to enter judgment in case of a general verdict or a court decision awarding only costs or a sum certain or denying all relief. See Reporter’s Notes to 1972 amendment of V.R.C.P. 58. Rule 58(c) carries forward language of the present rule. Cf. F.R.C.P. 58(c). Rule 58(d) carries forward language of the present Vermont rule, in contrast to amended F.R.C.P. 58(d), which substitutes a provision permitting the parties to request that a separate form of judgment be prepared for the more stringent federal provision designed to make preparation of forms of judgment by the lawyers the exception. See Reporter’s Notes to V.R.C.P. 58; Federal Advisory Committee’s Note to 2002 Amendment of F.R.C.P. 58.

Reporter’s Notes—2002 Amendment: Rule 58 is amended to add provisions of Federal Rule 58 requiring that to be effective a judgment must be set forth in a separate document. This language was omitted when the Vermont rule was adopted, because it was believed “unnecessary in most cases in Vermont. Notation of the entry in the docket will ordinarily suffice . . . .” Reporter’s Notes to Rule 58. In two recent cases, however, the Supreme Court has held that judgments were not effective or appealable when the court had not signed a separate written judgment order. Baker v. Town of Goshen, 169 Vt. 145, 730 A.2d 592 (1999); Powers v. Hayes, 170 Vt. 639, 751 A.2d 781 (2000). Thus, the original rule and Reporter’s Notes are misleading. While the amended rule may create additional paperwork, it is justified to assure a uniform practice that avoids confusion, identifies the time when an appealable order has been entered under Rule 79(a), and conforms to the holdings of Baker and Powers. Forms 31 and 32 may be used as forms for judgments on jury verdicts and trial to the court respectively. See Rule 84; Reporter’s Notes to Rule 58.

Reporter’s Notes—1996 Amendment: Rule 58 is amended to conform to the 1993 amendment of Federal Rule 58. See simultaneous amendment of Rule 54(d)(2). The present amendment makes clear that a claim for attorneys’ fees under the latter provision ordinarily does not suspend the running of the time for appeal. In some cases, however, it may be more efficient to hear the question of attorneys’ fees prior to appeal so that the issues raised may be decided with the appeal on the merits. Accordingly, the amendment permits the trial court to delay the time for appeal until the motion for fees is determined. The court must enter an order to this effect before the notice of appeal has become effective pursuant to V.R.A.P. 4—that is, when it is filed or when any post-trial motion or motions saved under that rule have been decided. When an order is entered under Rule 58, a motion for attorneys’ fees is to be treated like a timely motion under Rule 59. See federal Advisory Committee’s Note to 1993 Amendment of Rule 58.

Reporter’s Notes—1972 Amendment: This amendment, like that to Rule 55(b), is intended to relieve the clerks of final responsibility for the form of a judgment. The former rule permitted the clerk, without direction of the court, to sign and enter judgments upon general verdicts or court decisions for a sum certain or costs, or denying all relief. Other types of judgments required court approval. Under the amendment, a single procedure is followed regardless of the basis for judgment, and the Presiding Judge is charged with the technical responsibilities formerly borne by the court. The clerk ordinarily will prepare the form of judgment, but the Presiding Judge may order otherwise at the time of verdict or decision if the judgment is one appropriate for judicial participation or submission of a form by the attorneys. Regardless of who prepares the judgment, the Presiding Judge must approve and sign it. As under the former rule, entry of the judgment is thereupon accomplished by the clerk. Conforming changes have been made in Forms 31 and 32 and in D.C.C.R. 58.

Reporter’s Notes: This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule 58. It establishes the time of entry of judgment, which is critical for the running of periods such as the time for motion for new trial under Rule 59(b) or for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b). As in prior practice under 12 V.S.A. § 2383, Appellate Rule 4(a) provides that the time for appeal runs from entry of judgment. The Court has treated the filing of the judgment order with the clerk as “entry” for purposes of the statute. See Rice Lumber Co. v. Baslow, 123 Vt. 443, 194 A.2d 65 (1963); cf. 4 V.S.A. § 118 (now superseded); 12 V.S.A. § 4561 (now superseded). Rule 58 makes clear that entry of judgment (including, of course, any order or decree) is the act of the clerk in noting the judgment on the civil docket rather than the act of the court in rendering judgment. The clerk has standing authority to enter judgment “forthwith” after decision, except where the relief granted is complex or based upon a special verdict. In such cases entry must await the court’s prompt approval of the form of judgment. The rule expressly provides that a judgment is not effective before entry. The rule changes practice under 12 V.S.A. § 4563 (now superseded), which gave the clerk 30 days after the making of a chancery decree to record it when there was no appeal. Rule 58 differs from the federal rule in omitting the requirement that every judgment be set forth in a separate document before entry. This provision is unnecessary in most cases in Vermont. Notation of the entry in the docket will ordinarily suffice, but Official Forms 31 and 32 in the Appendix of Forms may be used in cases where the judgment is set forth separately. The last two sentences of the rule also depart from the federal model, which makes submission of forms of judgment the exception. The Vermont rule carries forward the practice recognized for both law and equity in former County Court Rule 28.3 and former Chancery Rule 35, which provide for preparation of decrees and orders by counsel subject to approval by opposing counsel. Cf. Rhode Island Rule 58.