Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Vermont

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Bifurcate Civil Trial

"[A] court may order a separate trial of any claim or issue in furtherance of convenience, expedition and economy, or to avoid prejudice." (Mobbs v. Cent. Vt. Ry., Inc. (1990) 155 Vt. 210, 215 [citing Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), and noting that Vermont's rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)]; Gardner v. Hokenson, SUPREME COURT No. 2019-410, at *4 (Vt. Feb. 5, 2021).)

“Rule 42(b) acts as a counterbalance to relatively unlimited joinder rules at the pleading stage by giving trial courts virtually unlimited freedom to try the issues in whatever way trial convenience requires." (See Gardner v. Hokenson, SUPREME COURT No. 2019-410, at *4 (Vt. Feb. 5, 2021).)

“When addressing certain claims first could be dispositive of the case or is likely to lead the parties to negotiate a settlement, and resolution of [those claims] might make it unnecessary to try the other [claims] in the litigation, separate trial may be desirable to save the court's time and reduce the parties' expenses.” (See id.)

“But if the separate claims involve extensive proof and substantially the same facts or witnesses as other [claims] . . . or if any saving in time or expense is wholly speculative, a court is likely to deny a motion to bifurcate." (See id.)

“Separate trials may be ordered to avoid prejudice, as when evidence admissible only on a certain issue may prejudice a party in the minds of the jury on other issues." (See id.)

“This principle has been applied, even in cases when a single trial would otherwise be preferable, if the jury would learn in a single trial that the defendant was insured; however, if the claims are related, courts may hold a single trial with the understanding that jurors assume the existence of insurance.” (See id.)

“The court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed or put to undue expense, or will prevent delay of the trial or other proceedings, by the assertion of a third-party claim, and may dismiss the third-party claim, order separate trials, or make other orders to prevent delay or prejudice.” (See Stratton Corp. v. Engelberth Constr., Inc. (2015) 124 A.3d 489, 493-94.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Bifurcate Civil Trial

“The trial court is given broad discretion to determine whether a joint trial is appropriate." (See 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure sub. sec. 2388, at 113-14 (3d. ed. 2008); Gardner v. Hokenson, SUPREME COURT No. 2019-410, at *4 (Vt. Feb. 5, 2021).)

“It is well-established by a wealth of case law that ultimately the question of whether to conduct separate trials under Rule 42(b) should be, and is, a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court on the basis of the circumstances of the litigation before it.” (See Gardner v. Hokenson, SUPREME COURT No. 2019-410, at *4 (Vt. Feb. 5, 2021).)

“Courts consider a multitude of factors on a case-by-case basis, but the principal consideration must be which procedure is more likely to result in a just and expeditious final disposition of the litigation.” (See id.)

“Ultimately, the question of whether a particular case is appropriate for bifurcation falls within the trial court's discretion.” (See Falanga v. Boylan (2015) 123 A.3d 811, 825.)

“As with other decisions involving the trial court's discretion, we will not disturb its ruling unless it is shown that such discretion was abused or entirely withheld.” (See Castle v. Sherburne Corp. (1982) 141 Vt. 157, 164, 446 A.2d 350, 353; Poplaski v. Lamphere (1989)152 Vt. 251, 255.)

“Abuse of discretion occurs when that discretion is exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable, or to an extent clearly unreasonable." (See In re Halnon (2002) 174 Vt. 514, 517; In re Gaines Farm Cmty. Solar, LLC, SUPREME COURT No. 2017-263, at *2 (Vt. Dec. 1, 2017).)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion Bifurcate Civil Trial

It is well settled that “pursuant to V.R.F.P. 4(j), the court, ruling on a motion to modify, may bifurcate the proceedings. During the first phase, the court should determine and make findings as to whether there has been a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances.” (See Gates v. Gates (1998) 168 Vt. 64, 69.)

As such, “if a hearing is to be held on a motion to modify, the court may bifurcate the hearing and first determine and make findings as to whether there has been a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances; if no such change is found, the court may dismiss the motion without reaching the merits of the action.” (See id.)