Introduction

The judgment in Amy Spooner v. Jon Milizia from the Supreme Court of Vermont (dated March 14, 2025) addresses significant procedural issues surrounding the extension of a final relief-from-abuse (RFA) order. The case involves plaintiff Amy Spooner, who had previously obtained an RFA order against defendant Jon Milizia after alleging that he had subjected her to severe physical abuse and threats. Following an initial order that protected her for a fixed period, the plaintiff sought to extend this order on the basis that the defendant’s behavior continued to place her at risk.

The essential background of the case includes the filing of an RFA complaint in June 2023, the issuance of a temporary order, and subsequently a final order that mandated specific restrictions on the defendant. Later, when the plaintiff filed a motion to extend the final order on evidence of ongoing risk, a hearing set for July 8, 2024, became the stage for critical procedural disputes relating particularly to the adequacy of service of notice and the preservation of such procedural arguments in the record.

Summary of the Judgment

The trial court originally denied the plaintiff’s motion to extend the final RFA order on an erroneous reading of the parties' appearances; however, it subsequently vacated that denial due to an internal miscommunication regarding the plaintiff's attendance. At the evidentiary hearing, both parties presented their cases, and crucially, the court found that the defendant’s past abusive conduct and his continued association with a neighbor raised legitimate concerns about the plaintiff's safety.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the extension on procedural grounds, arguing defective service and an alleged ex parte proceeding. The appellate court, however, affirmed the extension. It held that the defendant had actual notice of the proceedings, that his challenge was not properly preserved in the record, and that both parties were given a full opportunity to be heard. In essence, the court ruled that the trial court acted within its discretionary authority in extending the RFA order to further protect the plaintiff.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several precedents that have helped shape the court’s decision:

• V.R.A.P. 28: This rule clarifies the content required for principal briefs, specifically noting that the appellee is not obligated to include a statement of the case. The court used this rule to deny the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff's brief.
• HOOVER v. HOOVER, 171 Vt. 256: This case underlined that appellate review is confined to the record presented at trial. In the present case, the court’s reference to Hoover emphasizes that factual assertions not captured in the trial record cannot be revisited on appeal.
• Rollo v. Cameron, 2013 VT 74: The court cited this authority regarding the proper procedure for raising claims challenging service of process. The decision clarifies that issues related to insufficient service must be timely preserved either by a motion to dismiss or by raising the matter at the hearing.
• Poss v. Alarie, 2023 VT 55: This recent decision supports the notion that as long as the defendant had proper notice and participated in the proceedings, claims pertaining to insufficient service are not sustainable on appeal.
• State v. Ben-Mont Corp., 163 Vt. 53: This case reinforces the requirement that any appeal must preserve specific issues with a level of detail that gives the trial court a fair chance to respond.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning pivots on two central legal themes: the procedural preservation of issues and the importance of adhering to the limitations of the appellate review. The defendant’s chief arguments—that he was not served and that the hearing was conducted ex parte—were ultimately rejected on the following grounds:

• Actual Notice: The record clearly evidences that the defendant received notice of the motion and the hearing. His presence, including his active participation during the July 8 hearing and his timely telephone call, underscores that he was aware of the proceedings.
• Preservation of Issues: The defendant failed to articulate his procedural objections with the necessary specificity during the hearing. The court emphasized that for an issue to be considered on appeal, it must be clearly preserved in the trial record. By not adequately preserving his claim regarding insufficient service or improper ex parte proceedings, the defendant’s arguments were deemed untimely for appellate review.
• Opportunity to Be Heard: Since both parties were present during the hearing, the claim of an ex parte proceeding did not hold. The definition of an ex parte proceeding requires that one party is entirely absent, which was not the case here.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for future cases involving RFA orders. Importantly, it reinforces the necessity for parties to timely and clearly preserve procedural objections. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale: any error in invoking procedural claims on appeal can result in those claims being dismissed as unpreserved.

Moreover, the decision underscores that when actual notice is provided, courts are less inclined to entertain late procedural defenses. Litigants in future family law proceedings, particularly those involving abuse protection orders, will likely find the appellate courts demanding rigorous adherence to the rules of procedure as set forth in V.R.A.P. 28.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To ensure clarity, several complex legal concepts from the judgment are explained below:

• Relief-from-Abuse (RFA) Order: A legal order designed to protect individuals from further abuse by prohibiting the abuser from contacting or coming close to the protected party. In this case, the order also mandated a specific distance (300 feet) between the parties.
• Ex Parte Proceeding: A proceeding in which only one party is present or given the opportunity to be heard. The court made clear that because both parties were present at the hearing, the proceeding could not be classified as ex parte.
• Preservation of Issues: For a claim or objection to be considered on appeal, it must be explicitly made and recorded during the trial proceedings. Vague or late-raised issues are typically dismissed on appeal.
• Service of Process: The method by which a party receives notice of legal proceedings. The defendant’s argument regarding improper service was undermined because the record confirmed that he received notice and even participated in the hearing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Vermont’s decision in Amy Spooner v. Jon Milizia affirms the extension of an RFA order despite the defendant’s procedural objections. The case is instructive in that it highlights the critical importance of proper preservation of issues for appellate review and reinforces that actual notice and participation in proceedings effectively negate claims of ex parte proceedings in this context.

In summary, the judgment serves as an essential reference point for future cases involving abuse relief orders. It also reminds litigants and courts alike of the need for stringent adherence to procedural rules when challenging or extending protective orders. Ultimately, the decision not only provides relief and protection for the parties involved but also fortifies the procedural integrity required in family law proceedings.