rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)

Citation: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Parent Document: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-11
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19666 ↗

Full Text

974 chars

In the circumstances, the only sensible construction of Steven’s motion is to treat it as
seeking Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. There is no other dismissal standard
that might cogently apply.2 The court disregards all evidence the parties have sought to
introduce beyond the allegations of the complaint and the two exhibits filed with it. The court
declines to convert the motion to dismiss to one seeking summary judgment as any such
conversion would be wholly improvident on this record. See V.R.C.P. 12(b) (“If, on a motion
asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by
the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided
in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made
pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.”).

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text