St Pierre v. Morin

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 11

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Franklin Unit Case No. 25-CV-00744
17 Church Street
St. Albans VT 05478
802-524-7993
.vermontjudiciary.org

Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin

ORDER ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Roberta Morin's motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Plaintiff Melissa Kay Perley St. Pierre filed this declaratory relief action, both in her

individual capacity and in her capacity as trustee, asking the Court to determine certain rights,

duties, and obligations under two deeds executed by grantor Peter Perley and the Peter E. Perley
Trust dated May 23, 2016 ("Trust").
Mr. Perley died on May 31, 2023. The central controversy concerns who has the right, and
under what terms, to occupy his former residence, located at 267 West Berkshire Road, in

Enosburg Falls, Vermont ("the Property'). Ms. Morin, who was Mr. Perley's romantic partner
when he died, argues that the language of two deeds pertinent to this action deeds from 2016

and 2019 is unambiguous and grants her a life estate. She asks the Court to grant judgment in

her favor. She also argues that the Court should grant judgment in her favor on her counterclaims

related to whether Ms. St. Pierre violated her duties as trustee and who, if anyone, should be

disinherited under the no-contest clause in the Trust. Ms. St. Pierre, who is Mr. Perley's daughter,

trustee of his Trust, and the residuary beneficiary of his Trust, opposes the motion and asks for

judgment in her favor as to interpretation of the 2016 and 2019 deeds.
Based on the following, the Court denies Defendant's motion and enters judgment in

Plaintiff's favor only as to the 2016 and 2019 deeds. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the

remaining claims, which must be heard as an initial matter in the Probate Division.

Background
Peter E. Perley acquired the Property in 1991. In 2016, Mr. Perley executed a deed with

the following granting clause:

Order Page 1 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
Peter E. Perley . . . in the consideration of ten and more dollars paid to my full
satisfaction by, the Peter E. Perley Trust, dated May 23, 2016, . . . do freely GIVE,
GRANT[,] SELL, CONVEY and CONFIRM unto the said Grantee, the Peter
Perley Trust, dated May 23, 2016, and its successors and assigns forever, SUBJECT
TO A RESERVED ENHANCED LIFE ESTATE OF Peter E. Perley, in a certain
piece of land in the Town of Enosburg, County of Franklin, State of Vermont.

Pltf’s Exh. B (“2016 Deed”) (emphasis in original). A “granting clause” is defined as “[t]he words
that transfer an interest in a deed or other instrument[.]” Black’s Law Dictionary, granting clause
(12th ed. 2024).
The following language appears immediately after the legal description of the Property:
Grantor, Peter E. Perley, hereby EXCEPTS AND RESERVES unto for and during
my natural life the right to possess, occupy, use and control the entire and whole
land and premises as freely, fully and exclusively as I might do if the fee title were to
remain in myself, with the exclusive right to occupy, use, sell[,] convey, mortgage,
gift with or without consideration, lease or encumber part or all of the subject
premises in our sole discretion without joinder of the Grantee.

During Grantor’s lifetime, Grantor shall be responsible for payment of all
mortgage(s), taxes, utilities, insurance, upkeep and maintenance expenses.

This deed is subordinate to any future mortgage obtained by the Grantor.

Further, this deed gives ROBERTA MORIN a life estate in said residence for as
long as she may desire, as long as she resides therein, has no other person residing
therein for longer than 30 days in any one (1) calendar year period and she pays all
insurance, water, lights, heat, trash, snow removal, groundkeeping, and keeps the
property maintained, neat and clean.

2016 Deed. The habendum clause then provides:

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said granted premises, with all the privileges and
appurtenances thereof, to the Grantee, the Peter E. Perley Trust, dated May 23,
2016, and its successors and assigns, to its own use and behoof forever, and I, the
said Grantor, Peter E. Perley, for myself and my heirs, executors and
administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee the Peter E. Perley Trust, dated
May 23, 2016, and its successors and assigns, that until the ensealing of these
presents I am the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to
convey the same in manner aforesaid, that they are FREE FROM EVERY
ENCUMBRANCE; except for the above delineated enhanced life estate, existing
easements, restrictions and rights of way of record and as aforesaid[.]

Order Page 2 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
Id. (emphasis in original). A “habendum clause” is defined as “[t]he part of an instrument, such as
a deed or will, that defines the extent of the interest being granted and any conditions affecting the
grant. “The introductory words to the clause are ordinarily to have and to hold.” Black’s Law
Dictionary, habendum clause (12th ed. 2024); see Kipp v. Estate of Chips, 169 Vt. 102, 104 n.1 (1999)
(“The habendum clause in a deed typically sets forth the estate to be held by the
grantee.”). “While the granting clause actively transfers the land from the grantor to the grantee/s,
the habendum clause seeks to describe the type of title that has been granted.” Kipp, 169 Vt. at
104 n.1.
In 2019, Mr. Perley executed a second deed regarding the Property. The 2019 Deed is
identical to the 2016 Deed except for the language concerning Ms. Morin. In place of the
paragraph in the 2016 Deed granting Ms. Morin a life estate, the 2019 Deed states: “The purpose
of this deed is to remove the granted life estate to Roberta Morin.” Pltf’s Exh. C (“2019 Deed”).
In her motion, Ms. Morin argues that in the 2016 Deed, Mr. Perley reserved an enhanced
life estate in the Property for himself, granted a contingent remainder interest in the Property to
the Trust, and then separately granted a conventional life estate in the Property to her. According
to Ms. Morin, this gift was complete and revocable only with Ms. Morina’s consent when Mr.
Perley made it in 2016. Ms. Morin then suggests that in the 2019 Deed, Mr. Perley again reserved
an enhanced life estate in the Property for himself, again granted a contingent remainder interest
in the Property to the Trust, and failed to unilaterally remove Defendant’s life estate in the
Property. Under Ms. Morin’s argument, the attempt to remove her life estate failed, because she
did not sign, consent to, or join in the 2019 Deed. Motion at 3–4.
Ms. St. Pierre argues that the 2016 Deed effectuated Mr. Perley’s broader estate plans by
conveying the Property to the Trust while reserving to himself an enhanced life estate interest.
She points to the plain language of the 2016 Deed to argue that the life estate interest Mr. Perley
granted to Ms. Morin at that time was a “future expectancy.” Opposition at 3. In 2019, Ms. St.
Pierre contends, Mr. Perley validly terminated Ms. Morin’s future expectancy by the creation of a
new deed expressly removing the life estate to Ms. Morin.
After Mr. Perley died on May 31, 2023, Ms. St. Pierre asked that Mr. Morin vacate the
Property. She refused. Plaintiff first filed a case in the Probate Division to clarify the parties’
rights to the Property, but that case was dismissed because the issue of the deed interpretation is a
civil matter. Ms. St. Pierre then initiated the instant case.
Order Page 3 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
Mr. Perley amended his Trust at the same time he executed the 2019 deed. In that
amendment, he amended his bequest of money to Ms. Morin from $10,000 to $15,000. He also
added a no contest clause that disinherits any person who contests the Trust.

Analysis
A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted only when the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the pleadings alone. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc. v.
Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2022 VT 45, ¶ 17, 217 Vt. 195 (citing Messier v. Bushman, 2018 VT 93, ¶ 9, 208 Vt.
261). In deciding the motion, the court assumes “‘all well pleaded factual allegations in the
nonmovant’s pleadings and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom’ are true and ‘all
contravening assertions in the movant’s pleadings’ are false.” Id. (quoting Thayer v. Herdt, 155 Vt.
448, 456 (1990)). Where a nonmovant’s pleadings contain allegations that, if proved, would
permit recovery, a moving party is not entitled to a judgment. Id. (citing Hinsdale v. Sherman, 171
Vt. 605, 606 (2000) (mem.)); Knight v. Rower, 170 Vt. 96, 98 (1999).

I. Count I of the Complaint and Counterclaim,
The “‘master rule for the construction of deeds is that the intention of the parties, when
ascertainable from the entire instrument, prevails over technical terms or their formal
arrangement.’” In re Guite, 2011 VT 58, ¶ 9, 190 Vt. 90 (quoting Kennedy v. Rutter, 110 Vt. 332,
338(1939)). To discern the parties’ intent, “the court must consider the deed as a whole and give
effect to every part contained therein to arrive at a consistent, harmonious meaning, if possible.”
Main St. Landing, LLC v. Lake St. Ass’n, Inc., 2006 VT 13, ¶ 7, 179 Vt. 583 (citing Kipp v. Chips
Estate, 169 Vt. 102, 105 (1999)). If the Court determines that the deeds are not ambiguous, “the
plain meaning of the language controls without resort to rules of construction or extrinsic
evidence.” Id. (citing Kipp, 169 Vt. at 107).
A deed is ambiguous “‘if reasonable people could differ as to its interpretation.’” Sanville v.
Town of Albany, 2022 VT 22, ¶ 15, 216 Vt. 368 (quoting Brault v. Welch, 2014 VT 44, ¶ 11, 196 Vt.
459). In the event of an ambiguity, the “interpretation of the parties’ intent becomes a question of
fact to be determined based on all of the evidence—not only the language of the written
instrument, but also evidence concerning its subject matter, its purpose at the time it was executed,
and the situations of the parties.” Id. (citing Mann v. Levin, 2004 VT 100, ¶ 17, 177 Vt. 261). “The
Order Page 4 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
determination of whether a deed provision is ambiguous is ultimately a question of law.” Sanville,
2022 VT 22, ¶ 15.
In this case, a motion for judgment on the pleadings can only be granted if the 2016 and
2019 Deeds are not ambiguous.
Vermont and a handful of other states, including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, and Texas,
recognize enhanced life estate deeds, also known as Lady Bird deeds.1 Title 27, Chapter 6 of the
Vermont Statutes Annotated is titled “Enhanced Life Estate Deeds” and provides an optional
form for those wishing to create this type of deed. See 27 V.S.A. § 660. The statute did not come
into effect until July 13, 2020, after Mr. Perley created the 2016 and 2019 Deeds. However,
Vermont recognized this type of deed before the statute’s enactment. See Cook v. Coburn, 2014 VT
45, ¶¶ 3, 11, 196 Vt. 410 (when husband’s mother deeded family farm to husband, retaining a life
estate as well as power to sell or mortgage the property during her lifetime, “husband’s interest
was a mere expectancy”) (quotation and citation omitted).
The Cook Court explained that the deed at issue, also known as a “Lady Bird deed, an
enhanced life estate deed, or a transfer-on-death deed,” conveyed only a future interest, and those
sorts of deeds “are ‘designed to avoid probate, as well as creditors.’” Id. ¶ 13 n.2 (additional
quotations omitted) (quoting In the Matter of the Estate of Dolores Ann Davis, 18 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J.
247, 249 (2005)); see also Willey v. Hammond, No. 140-8-19 Lecv, 2022 WL 17960123, at *1 n.1 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2022) (Richardson, J.) (“Ms. Hammond has executed an enhanced life estate
deed . . . to her daughter,” which means “Ms. Hammond retains much of the elements of
ownership and control . . ., including the right to mortgage, sell, subdivide, and use the property as

1 See, e.g., Hirschenson v. Compu-Link Corp. of MI, 389 So.3d 574, 576 n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023) (“The

holder of an enhanced life estate retains the power to sell, convey, mortgage, and otherwise manage the
property without liability for waste to the remainderman. In other words, the remainderman’s interest is at
best, vested and subject to defeasance, but arguably contingent.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); Custis v. Custis, No. C-06-CV-19-000599, 2021 WL 4461715, at *3 & n.1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.
Sept. 29, 2021) (“[A]lthough Marie granted the Property to herself only ‘for her life,’ she reserved to
herself ‘the full power’ to transfer or encumber the entire Property ‘during her life.’ The plain language of
the 1989 Deed establishes a life estate with powers,” also known as a Lady Bird deed.); Padgett v. Taulbee,
No. XX-XXXXXXX-CK, 2024 WL 5160548, at *8 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024) (“The ‘Lady Bird’ deed is a
deed ‘that allows a property owner to transfer ownership of the property to another while retaining the
right to hold and occupy the property and use it as if the transferor were still the sole owner.’”) (quoting
Bill & Dena Brown Trust v. Garcia, 880 N.W.2d 269, 271 n.2 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)); Anderson v. Campbell,
No. 12-24-00075-CV, 2025 WL 52668, at *5 (Tex. App. Jan. 8, 2025) (“[T]he grantee [of a Lady Bird or
enhanced life estate deed] would receive the property upon the grantor’s death only if the grantor did not
exercise the right to otherwise dispose of the property during her lifetime.”).
Order Page 5 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
she sees fit,” and her daughter’s interest is “future and contingent.”). “[T]he basic structure [of
enhanced life estate deeds] has been recognized as effective for more than a century, and is
generally understood as conveying either a present defeasible interest in the fee or a future
contingent interest in the fee.” Sharpe v. Helmer, No. 727-11-10 Wrcv, 2012 WL 4848664 (Vt.
Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2012) (DiMauro, J.) (citing John C. Newman and Ron R. Morgan, Tax and
Medicaid Planning Aspects of the Standard Vermont Estate Plan-2007 Update, 33 Vt. B.J. 28 (Winter
2007/2008)).
The provisions of Title 27, Chapter 6 of the Vermont statutes apply to deeds where the
“grantor reserves a common law life estate interest in real property while expressly reserving rights
such that the deed creates a contingent remainder interest in the grantee.” 27 V.S.A. § 652. The
grantee of an enhanced life estate deed “acquires a contingent remainder interest such that, prior
to the death of the grantor, the grantee has no vested rights in the property.” Id. § 653(2)(C).
The grantor retains the right to unilaterally revoke or revise an enhanced life estate deed.
Id. § 656. “Revise” is defined as:
to change the grantee on an [enhanced life estate] deed and is accomplished when
the grantor records a new ELE deed to a grantee other than, or in addition to, the
grantee named in the prior ELE deed. A revised deed supersedes and replaces a
prior ELE deed. To add an additional grantee to an existing ELE deed, the new
ELE deed must name all grantees.

Id. § 653(6) (emphasis added). “Joinder by, consent to, agreement of, or notice to the grantee of
an ELE deed shall not be required for revocation or revision.” Id. § 656 (b).
In this case it is abundantly clear that the 2016 Deed was an enhanced life estate deed. In
the granting clause, Mr. Perley, as grantor, defined the Peter E. Perley Trust, dated May 23, 2016
(Perley Trust”), as the grantee, and clearly stated that the conveyance to the Perley Trust was
subject to an enhanced life estate that Mr. Perley was reserving to himself. Then, after providing a
legal description of the Property, Mr. Perley again clarified that he was reserving for himself a life
estate interest in the Property:
Grantor, Peter E. Perley, hereby EXCEPTS AND RESERVES unto for and during
my natural life the right to possess, occupy, use and control the entire and whole
land and premises as freely, fully and exclusively as I might do if the fee title were
to remain in myself, with the exclusive right to occupy, use, sell[,] convey,
mortgage, gift with or without consideration, lease or encumber part or all of
the subject premises in our sole discretion without joinder of the Grantee.

Order Page 6 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
2016 Deed (emphasis added). Similarly, in the habendum clause of the 2016 Deed, Mr. Perley
clearly stated that he has “good right and title to convey the same in manner
aforesaid, that they are FREE FROM EVERY ENCUMBRANCE; except for the above
enhanced life estate, existing easements, restrictions and rights of way of record and as
aforesaid[.]” Id. (emphasis in original). The habendum clause in the 2016 Deed is nearly identical
to the form set forth in the statute. 27 V.S.A. § 660.
When a court interprets a deed, it “read[s] the entire written instrument as a whole, giving
‘effect to every part’ so as to understand the words in the context of the full deed.” Kipp, 169 Vt.
at 105 (quoting Aiken v. Clark, 117 Vt. 391, 393 (1952)). This means that the Court is to “construe
the various clauses of the document, wherever possible, so that the deed has a consistent, or
harmonious, meaning.” Id. (citing deNeergaard v. Dillingham, 123 Vt. 327, 332 (1963)). Rules of
construction are adopted for the sole purpose of removing doubts and obscurities so as to get at
the meaning intended by the parties.” Aiken, 117 Vt. at 393.
The parties in this case do not dispute that the 2016 Deed was an enhanced life estate deed
as between Mr. Perley and the Trust. They disagree on how to construe the grant of an interest to
Ms. Morin. As a result, the key legal dispute in this case is whether an enhanced life estate deed
can also contain a separate grant of a pure life estate to another party, where this separate grant is
not subject to the reservation of rights that is the foundation of an enhanced life estate deed. Ms.
Morin’s position is that it can, and that the gift to her was immediate and could not be revoked
without her consent. Ms. St. Pierre’s position is that it does not under the language in the 2016
Deed and that the gift to Ms. Morin was a future contingent interest just like the gift to the Trust.
The Court turns to the remainder of the language in the deed to construe the deed as a
whole to determine whether it is ambiguous. The 2016 Deed creates confusion because the
grantor and habendum clauses do not mention the gift to Ms. Morin to clearly categorize it. The
gift to Ms. Morin is placed after the reservation that is typical in an enhanced life estate deed and is
not referenced anywhere else in the deed.
The 2016 Deed provides that during Mr. Perley’s lifetime, he was to “be responsible for
payment of all mortgage(s), taxes, utilities, insurance, upkeep and maintenance expenses.” It then
goes on to state that “This deed is subordinate to any future mortgage obtained by the Grantor.”
It does not state that the mortgages would be obtained by Grantor and Ms. Morin.

Order Page 7 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
In describing the life estate granted to Ms. Morin, Mr. Perley stated that she was to be
responsible for “insurance, water, lights, heat, trash, snow removal, groundkeeping[.]” In addition,
Ms. Morin’s life estate was conditioned on her living at the Property without anyone else for more
than 30 days in a year. Ms. Morin clearly could not live at the Property without anyone else if Mr.
Perley was also living at the Property. It would likewise be nonsensical for her to be responsible
for the insurance, utilities, groundkeeping, and maintenance of the Property if Mr. Perley was
already responsible for these things during his life. If the grant to Ms. Morin went into effect at
the time of execution, then she has failed to meet the conditions necessary for her exercise of that
life estate.
Ms. Morin’s contention that Mr. Perley granted her a vested life estate in 2016 is not borne
out by the language of the deed as a whole, as described above. It is also inconsistent with the law
of enhanced life estate deeds. The only way to construe the 2016 Deed as a whole, giving effect to
every part so that the deed has one consistent meaning, is to find that Defendant’s life estate
interest in the Property was only an expectancy that would not become ripe, if at all, until Mr.
Perley died and his life estate terminated, and that it was contingent on Mr. Perley’s decision not
to sell, convey, mortgage, or gift the Property otherwise during the life estate he reserved to
himself. There is no way to read the 2016 Deed as a whole so as to give away a life estate in 2016
to Ms. Morin.
First, as noted above, she would have violated the conditions of the gift immediately and
persistently until Mr. Perley died or stopped paying expenses. Ms. Morin urges the Court to insert
additional words into the deed so as to reconcile this clear contradiction. The Court declines to
do this because it does not resolve the second issue – Mr. Perley’s reservation of rights to himself
to sell, convey or mortgage the property would have been rendered meaningless under Ms.
Morin’s interpretation. Mr. Perley would have needed Ms. Morin’s consent to do any of those
things under her interpretation of the deed. This interpretation is foundationally inconsistent with
the purpose and language of an enhanced life estate deed.
The question before the Court in determining whether the 2016 Deed is ambiguous is
whether there is a reasonable alternative reading of the deed. The Court finds there is not. Many
of Ms. Morin’s efforts to do so in her filings twist the plain language of the 2016 Deed and
disregard the longstanding purpose of an enhanced life estate deed. The 2016 Deed is not drafted
well. But it is not ambiguous because one reading allows for a single harmonious reading of all
Order Page 8 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
provisions and the other does not. Main St. Landing, LLC v. Lake St. Ass’n, Inc., 2006 VT 13, ¶ 7,
179 Vt. 583.
Because the 2016 Deed granted Ms. Morin a future contingent interest, the 2019 Deed
extinguished her expectancy of a life estate in the Property following Mr. Perley’s death. After Mr.
Perley executed the 2019 Deed, Ms. Morin no longer had a future contingent life estate interest.
The Court concludes that the 2016 Deed and the 2019 Deed are not ambiguous as a matter
of law. At Mr. Perley’s death, the Perley Trust, as the sole grantee under the 2019 Deed, became
the owner of the Property. Ms. Morin has no current right to live in the Property.
Ms. St. Pierre noted in her opposition that she was also asking for judgment as a matter of
law. Typically the Court requires a separate motion. However, because both parties had the full
opportunity to brief this issue and because this case hinges on a set of uncontested facts and the
legal interpretation of those facts, judicial efficiency requires the entry of judgment at this time on
Count I of both the complaint and the counterclaim in favor of Ms. St. Pierre, in her role as
Trustee.

II. All Other Counts in the Complaint and Counterclaim
The Court’s judgment is limited to interpreting the 2016 and 2019 Deeds. As explained
more fully below, subject matter jurisdiction over the parties’ remaining issues concerning the
Perley Trust, the actions of the parties as beneficiaries and trustee, and appropriate distributions
from the Trust is in the Probate Division. See generally 4 V.S.A. § 35.
Count II of the complaint “seeks a declaration that Defendant’s refusal to vacate the
Property” violated the “Trust’s no-contest clause so that Defendant forfeited her right to receive
the $15,000.00 bequest under the Trust.”
Count II of the counterclaim seeks the opposite: a declaration that Ms. Morin is still
entitled to the $15,000 bequest in the Amendment to the Trust.
Count III of the counterclaim alleges that Ms. St. Pierre violated her duties as trustee by
refusing to immediately distribute the $15,000 bequest to Ms. Morin.
Count IV of the counterclaim asks the Court to find that by refusing to immediately
distribute the funds, and by conditioning that distribution on Ms. Morin vacating the Property,
Ms. St. Pierre in her individual capacity actually violated the Trust’s no-contest clause and should
be disinherited.
Order Page 9 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
Count V seeks reasonable attorney’s fees under Title 14.
What these claims all have in common is that they all deal with “the administration of
trusts pursuant to Title 14A.” 4 V.S.A. § 35(3). As part of this jurisdiction, the Probate Division
can consider declaratory judgments. Id. § 35(19). While the Civil Division has broad jurisdiction,
matters that are “subject to the jurisdiction of another division” are explicitly excluded. 4 V.S.A. §
31(5).
The Court understands that the Probate Division previously denied a petition filed there
because it ruled that the deed dispute is a civil dispute, and was the core of the parties’
disagreement. And at that time, the Probate Division was correct – the two counts in the
complaint and the petition filed in the Probate Division all depended on the interpretation of the
2016 and 2019 Deeds, which is a matter outside of the Probate Division’s more limited
jurisdiction. That issue is now resolved, and in turn the other disputes between the parties hinge
on the interpretation of the Trust’s no contest clause, and whether Ms. St. Pierre breached her
duty as trustee. Of course, with the main issues resolved, the Court hopes the parties will
endeavor to resolve the issues among themselves. But to the extent the parties cannot resolve the
issues, they must originate in the Probate Division. 14A V.S.A. § 203(a) (“The Probate Division of
the Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings in this State brought by a trustee or
beneficiary concerning the administration of a trust.”); 14A V.S.A. Chs. 8 and 10 (addressing the
duties and power of trustees, remedies for breaches of trust, and attorney’s fees).
Finally, to the extent Ms. Morin seeks attorney’s fees, she would not be entitled to them in
this Court under any circumstance because she is not the prevailing party.

ORDER
The Court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court enters
judgment on count I of the complaint and count I of the counterclaim to Plaintiff.
The Court dismisses all other counts on its own motion because the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over these disputes regarding the no-contest clause and Plaintiff’s duties as
trustee.
Because the Court dismissed the remaining counts without briefing from the parties, any
party has twenty-one days to file a motion to reconsider regarding this portion of the Court’s

Order Page 10 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin
decision. Such a motion must contain citations to specific statutes or case law establishing this
Court’s jurisdiction to hear these remaining disputes.
Electronically signed on November 2, 2025, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).

____________________
Navah C. Spero
Superior Court Judge

Order Page 11 of 11
25-CV-00744 Melissa St. Pierre et al v. Roberta Morin