In Re Black

Termont Superior Court
Filed 02/11/26
Washington Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Case No. 24-CV-03053
65 State Street
Montpelier VT 05602
802-828-2091
www.vermontjudiciary.org
In re: Virginia Black

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion Motion For: Request for Emergency Injunction (Motion: 5)
Filer: Elizabeth Black
Filed Date: February 09, 2026

The motions are DENIED.

Elizabeth Black has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking five areas of
relief. Ms. Black seeks:

(1) To pause the present litigation involving fees awarded to a former guardian for Ms.
Black's Mother, Virginia Black. Ms. Black, who is an interested party, has appealed the
Probate Division's award of these fees under 14 V.S.A. § 3076 and V.R.P.P. 66(d).

(2) To appeal the probate division's temporary entry order dated January 2, 2026 in Docket
No. 68-2-16 Wnpr. This decision granted a motion filed by Attorney Paula McCann, on

Virginia Black's behalf to temporarily keep Virginia Black in the St. Johnsbury
Rehabilitation Center while she continues to recover from a broken femur.

(3) To obtain an Order that Virginia Black is to be returned to her home in Barre, Vermont.
(4) To obtain an Order that Virginia Black's most recent advanced directive be recognized as
the controlling document under 14 V.S.A. § 3075.

(5) To have the February 13, 2026 Hearing scheduled in Docket No. 68-1-16 Wnpr
cancelled.
As explained below, these requests are Denied, however, the Court will extend the discovery
deadline in the present matter by 30 days, which will extend the discovery deadline from March

1, 2026 to April 1, 2026..
1. Request to Pause the Present Litigation

As to the first issue, the granting or denying of a stay is addressed to the broad discretion
of the trial court within its authority to control and manage its docket. In re Woodstock
Community Trust and Housing Vermont PRD, 2012 VT 87, ¶ 36.
In this case, Ms. Black seeks a pause in discovery as she admits that she has not
completed such discovery because she has been focused on the Advanced Directive issues in her
Mother’s Guardianship case in Docket No. 68-2-16 Wnpr. Against this consideration, the Court
must balance two other factors. First, this appeal has been pending for nearly two years with
little progress. The Court is obliged to shepherd cases in a timely matter, and to keep cases
moving toward a final disposition. In the present case, the Court has indicated to the parties that
there needs to be forward progress toward a final hearing on Ms. Black’s appeal. Second, the
other parties to this matter are entitled to finality. In particular, Ms. Buckholtz, the former
guardian, is entitled to a final determination on her fees—whether they are affirmed or denied.
Taking these factors together, the Court finds that Ms. Black’s situation does not warrant
a pause in the present litigation. The Court will, however, grant Ms. Black a one-time extension
of 30 days to push the discovery deadline from March 1, 2026 to April 1, 2026. The Court finds
that this limited extension will not impede the progress of the case and will not adversely affect
the other parties. This limited extension gives Ms. Black the chance to complete discovery, but
it is limited because the purpose of discovery deadlines is to create an end to this process and to
allow the matter to move forward.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a stay is Denied, but the Court will Grant a
limited extension.
2. Request to Appeal and Reverse the Probate Division
Ms. Blacks’ second, third, fourth, and fifth issues in her motion all relate to the Probate
Division’s January 2, 2026 Order and its upcoming February 13, 2026 Hearing. These matters
relate to two issues. The first is whether Virginia Black should remain in the St. Johnsbury
rehabilitation center where she is currently staying after breaking her leg in her home. The
second is whether Virginia Black’s 2018 Advanced Directive or a later Directive should apply to
guide her care.
While an interested party may take an appeal to the civil division from the probate
division, the order which is sought to be appealed must be a “final order” as to the subject matter
of the appeal. In re Estate of Thomas, 2022 VT 59, ¶ 7. If an order is not final, then the civil
division lacks the authority and jurisdiction to review or take up the matter. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.
In the present case, the January 2, 2026 Order by its name and express terms is
“temporary.” As a temporary order, this Court does not, at this time, have the authority to
review it, and the probate division retains jurisdiction on this matter. For these reasons, the
motion to appeal the January 2, 2026 probate division order and to order Viriginia Black to be
returned to her Barre home is Denied.
As to the issue of the Advanced Directive, Ms. Black’s arguments appear to focus both
on alleged illegality of the present situation and her belief that the probate judge is biased against
her. Neither of these issues give this Court authority or jurisdiction to remove the matter from
the probate division to the civil division. Id.
Ms. Black’s arguments concerning illegality are premised on the assumption that (1) her
filings and her position represent her mother’s true wishes and (2) that any other direction
advocated by either her sister, Deborah, or any of the other parties to this case represent a false
usurpation of these true wishes. This may be crystal clear to Ms. Black, but it remains the role of
the probate division to make these determinations and to review all of the evidence and
documents to make findings and draw legal conclusions. If Ms. Black disputes the final decision
of the probate division, then she may appeal. Id. But until such a final decision is rendered, Ms.
Black’s arguments concerning illegality are simply expressions of her understanding of the facts
and her interpretation of the law that have not been tested by the hearing process that is
necessary before this court can take appellate jurisdiction of the matter.
As to allegations of bias against Judge Kilgore of the probate division, these are not
sustained by the record before the Court, but if Ms. Black believes there is new and substantial
evidence going to this issue, her remedy is to seek the judge’s recusal by filing her reasons in
writing. Such a filing would be reviewed by the Chief Superior Court Judge who would render a
decision. This is the same process that Ms. Black invoked in 2024, and it remains available as
the primary process to address this allegation.
For these reasons, the Court finds no grounds or jurisdiction to either grant the present
motion’s request for emergency relief or to take jurisdiction of the present matter, which
properly remains before the probate division. As such, the Court will not rule on the request to
Termont Superior Court
Filed 02/11/26
Washington Unit

cancel the February 13" hearing or address the issues of either Virginia Black's placement in the
St. J ohnsbury Rehabilitation Center or the proper Advanced Directive.

ORDER
Ms. Black's Motion is Denied. The Court will, however, extend the discovery deadline
in the present case by 30 days and enlarge the discovery timeframe to April 1, 2026.

Electronically signed on 2/10/2026 6:19 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

af
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge