Jerome v. Raheb

Vermont Superior Court
Filed 10/16
Bennington nit
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Bennington Unit Case No. 22-CV-00175
207 South St
Bennington VT 05201
802-447-2700
www.vermontjudiciary.org

ames erome, r. v. Kerry Raheb, et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Tide: Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to (V.R.C.P.) 60(b)(3)(6) (Motion: 41)
Filer: Kerry Patrick Raheb; Renee Houston
Filed Date: August 11, 2025

Defendants, Kerry Patrick Raheb and Renee Houston, file this motion pro se, seeking to
vacate a judgment entered against them. Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston claim this case was filed
fraudulently and should be vacated under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).

Background

This matter arose from a disagreement between neighbors over the existence and use of
an easement on the driveway which served Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston's former residence on
Bluestone Road in Bennington, Vermont. Plaintiff, James Jerome, filed a complaint in J anuary
of 2022, claiming actions taken by Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston to block Mr. Jerome's access,
and the access of his invitees, to the driveway running between Mouth Anthony Road and
Bluestone Road constituted nuisance, interference with prospective business relationships, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston filed multiple motions to dismiss the case, motions to recuse
two different judges, opposing counsel, and a mediator, engaged in a lengthy back and forth over
mediation, and refused to participate in the discovery process. Due to this refusal, and a
subsequent order for sanctions issued on May 10, 2024, Mr. Jerome filed a motion for default
judgment under V.R.C.P. 54, or alternatively summary judgment on the issue of liability under
V.R.C.P. 56.

On September 10, 2024, this court granted partial summary judgment, holding Mr. Raheb
and Ms. Houston's liable on all three counts, based on the record of undisputed facts in the case.!
The court held a hearing for damages on July 7, 2025. Mr. Jerome, represented by counsel,
appeared and testified. Neither Mr. Raheb nor Ms. Houston attended the hearing. The court

1
The court set out the factual circumstances in this case in its May 10, 2024 Entry Order on Plaintiff's Motion for
Sanctions. The Undisputed Facts filed by Mr. Jerome on July 25, 2024 was based on those facts, and Mr. Jerome's
personal knowledge of the same facts set out in a supporting affidavit. The court admitted those facts by reference
in its Findings and Order on July 9, 2025.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 6
22-CV-00175 James Jerome, Jr. v. Kerry Raheb, et al
entered an order for damages based on Mr. Jerome’s credible testimony and evidence presented
as to the extent of damages.

On August 11, 2025, Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston filed a motion to vacate the judgment
based on fraud under V.C.R.P. 60(b)(3) supported with an affidavit and various exhibits. On
August 22, 2025, Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston filed a reply to Mr. Jerome’s Opposition
Memorandum, and included further exhibits in support of their motion.

Defendants’ Arguments

To begin, at present, Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston appear pro se. The court will be
cautious that a pro se party is not “taken advantage of by strict application of rules of procedure.”
Town of Washington v. Emmons, 2007 VT 22, ¶ 7, 181 Vt. 586 (mem.). However, a pro se party
may not use their status as a shield to the application of the rules that govern a party’s
appearance before the court. See Zorn v. Smith, 2011 VT 10, ¶ 22, 189 Vt. 219. “[T]he [pro se]
party so appearing shall be subject to the same rules that are or may be provided for attorneys in
like cases, so far as the same are applicable.” V.R.C.P. 79.1(a).

The arguments raised by the Motion to Vacate may be broken into a few categories. 1.
Accusations related to a case in another state. 2. Accusations related to court cases in other
dockets that have been resolved. 3. A claim that Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston were denied a
hearing, mediation, and a jury to hear their case. 4. A generalized claim that the case in this
docket was filed fraudulently.

Accusations relating to cases that are not before this court in this docket are not relevant
to the judgment Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston seek to vacate. This is particularly true of actions
in out-of-state courts. This court cannot consider these accusations in connection with this
motion.

The accusations regarding the other court proceedings in Vermont involving the parties
do not appear to be defenses to Mr. Jerome’s complaint here. The court will consider the
strength of a proffered defense to the judgement raised in a motion to vacate in its determination.
See LaFrance Architect v. Point Five Dev. South Burlington, LLC, 2013 VT 115, ¶ 16, 195 Vt.
543.

First, the accusations are not strongly supported by the evidence provided: one affidavit
by a self-interested party, and various photos. Second, the motion does not convincingly connect
the accusations and evidence with the claims that formed the basis of the complaint and
subsequent judgment. If the actions raised in this motion arose from the same occurrences which
caused Mr. Jerome to file his complaint, Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston were required to bring
them as compulsory counterclaims when they filed their answer. V.R.C.P. 13(a).

A pleading in an action in a superior court shall state as a counterclaim any
claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any
opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 6
22-CV-00175 James Jerome, Jr. v. Kerry Raheb, et al
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction.

V.R.C.P. 13(a). If the actions raised in the motion took place after defendants filed their answer
but were connected to the occurrences of the original complaint, V.R.C.P. 13(e) would require
defendants to bring those claims by supplemental pleading. To the extent the current accusations
are compulsory counterclaims, Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston waived them and they do not
support vacating the judgment.

Similar accusations have been raised in the case at various times, but by inference rather
than by proper pleading, and the current Motion to Vacate and Reply directly connect the
accusations to these other dockets. If Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston could not bring the claims
because they were being litigated in other dockets, as appears to be the case, then Mr. Raheb and
Ms. Houston were required to bring the claims under those separate dockets or waive the right to
bring those claims at all. V.R.C.P. 13(a); V.R.C.P. 13(a)(1). Entertaining the accusations here
would relitigate the other dockets mentioned. A motion to vacate may not be used to “afford
parties simply a second, better opportunity to litigate issues already contested and decided in a
previous proceeding.” Pirdair v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. of Vt., 173 Vt. 411, 415 (2002).

Lastly, the court will address the claim that Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston were denied a
hearing, mediation, and a jury to hear their case, and the claim that the case was filed
fraudulently. The exhibits which support claims of fraud are Exhibit 1, a copy of the judgment;
Exhibit 10, an aerial view of Mr. Jerome’s property on Bluestone Road; Reply Exhibit 7, a
memorandum from Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston’s former attorneys about the feasibility of
pursuing litigation in this docket; Reply Exhibit 8, an aerial view of Mr. Jerome’s property on
West Road.
Analysis

Rule 60 governs when and how a court may grant a party relief from a judgement or
order. Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514, 517, 725 A.2d 904, 907 (1998). Rule 60(b) specifies five
grounds for relief, including “fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party,” and a final catch all provision,
under which a party may bring a claim of fraud on the court. V.R.C.P. 60(b)(3), (6). “We must
be concerned about the certainty and finality of judgments so that litigation can reach an end.”
Richwagen v. Richwagen, 153 Vt. 1, 4, 568 A.2d 419, 421 (1989). Therefore, relief from a
previous judgment will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. Adamson v. Dodge, 174
Vt. 311, 327, 816 A.2d 455, 468 (2002).

Though Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston did not specifically raise a claim of fraud on the
court under Rule 60(b)(6), the court will consider it here, to give the pro se party the benefit of
their full motion. It appears the claim was intended, though the Motion to Vacate did not address
that rule.

To succeed on a motion to vacate judgement which alleges a party committed fraud on
the court under Rule 60(b)(6), the moving party must prove another party committed egregious
misconduct designed to mislead the court itself, such as by filing false evidence. Olio v. Olio,
Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 6
22-CV-00175 James Jerome, Jr. v. Kerry Raheb, et al
2012 VT 44, ¶ 19, 192 Vt. 41. The Vermont Supreme Court has held “fraud on the court
necessarily involves a deliberate effort to subvert the judicial process.” In re G.L., 2024 VT 60,
¶ 44. The Court has highlighted the intentionality, calculation, and knowing design of the
adverse party acting in fraud to procure the judgement. Id.

To succeed on a motion to vacate judgement alleging a party committed fraud generally,
the moving party must prove the adverse party’s actions met the elements of fraud. Under Rule
60(b)(3) it is essential that any misrepresentation be made by an adverse party. V.R.C.P.
60(b)(3).

Whether alleging general fraud or fraud on the court, the moving party must address the
judgment they seek to vacate, framing their discussion as to how the alleged conduct brought
about the judgment. In addressing deficiencies with the judgement brought about by the
fraudulent conduct of others, “the burden is on the party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) to plead
facts with sufficient particularity to warrant a hearing and potential relief.’ Spencer v. Spencer,
2014 VT 63, ¶ 13, 197 Vt. 1 (internal quotation marks omitted). General or abstract statements
of law or fact without specific application are an inadequate basis for a court’s decision. Bigelow
v. Denis, 119 Vt. 21, 25, 117 A.2d 261, 263 (1955). The evidence supporting a claim of fraud
must be clear and convincing. Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514, 519, 725 A.2d 904, 908 (1998).

To vacate the judgment Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Mr. Jerome perpetrated some fraud in this matter. Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston
have claimed they were denied a hearing, mediation, and a jury to hear their case, and, or
alternatively, the complaint which created this docket was filed fraudulently. The court will
address each claim in turn, assessing whether it meets the standards of V.R.C.P. 60(b)(3) or (6).
Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston did not present evidence to support the claim that they had been
denied a hearing, mediation, or a jury trial. The court will rely on the evidence contained within
the record. Due process requires a party have notice of events in their case, and a meaningful
opportunity to object to those events. Hill v. Springfield Hospital, 2023 VT 23, ¶ 19, 218 Vt. 64.
The evidence in the record shows a hearing was scheduled to determine the damages which led
to the judgment Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston seek to vacate. Notice Hr’g (May 14, 2025). Mr.
Raheb and Ms. Houston do not contest that they received notice of the hearing. Id.; Def’s Reply
at 2. Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston did not appear at this hearing, and did not request a
continuance. Findings and Order at 1 (July 9, 2025). Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston have
previously filed requests for continuance. See, e.g., Mot. Continuance (filed Jan. 23, 2025). Mr.
Raheb and Ms. Houston were aware of when to appear, know how to request a different date for
a hearing, and did not to do so for this hearing.

Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston stated their nonappearance was due to a death in the family.
Def’s Reply at 2. However, they did not timely seek a continuance or provide clear and
convincing evidence to the court that they were unavailable the day of the hearing. The court
cannot consider unsupported statements in a motion, or response, to be clear and convincing
evidence. Bigelow v. Denis, 119 Vt. 21, 25, 117 A.2d 261, 263 (1955). Based on the evidence
before the court, Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston were granted an opportunity for a hearing on this
judgment, and did not avail themselves of it.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 4 of 6
22-CV-00175 James Jerome, Jr. v. Kerry Raheb, et al
Similarly, the evidence in the record shows that Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston prevented
mediation from taking place by refusing to participate in the discovery process. Initially Mr.
Raheb and Ms. Houston objected to a mediator put forward by Mr. Jerome. Mot. Recuse
Mediator (filed July 8, 2025). They put forward the name of a different mediator, but Mr.
Jerome objected to this mediator. Id.; Pl.’s Mem. Regarding Def.’s Objection at 1–2 (filed July
13, 2022). Eventually, both parties agreed to mediation with a third mediator. Letter Advising
Stip. Mediator (filed Aug. 26, 2022). Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston then refused to participate in
discovery, preventing meditation from taking place, and leading to the motion for summary
judgment. V.R.C.P. 37, 56; Pl.’s Mot. Sanctions (filed Mar. 19, 2024); Pl.’s Mot. Default J. or
Alternative Partial Summ. J. (filed July 25, 2025). No clear and convincing evidence has been
presented that anyone other than Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston chose to obstruct the process of the
civil proceeding to such an extent that the parties could never reach the mediators.

Finally, both parties requested a jury trial. The court granted the request and told the
parties that a jury trial would be scheduled after the parties engaged in discovery. Entry Order at
2 (Apr. 27, 2022). This is the normal timeline for a civil complaint and conforms with the
Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure. V.R.C.P. 26–37. The evidence present before this court
shows Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston did not participate in discovery. See Entry Regarding Mot.
at 2 (Sept. 10, 2024). By not participating in discovery, the moving parties denied themselves
the full benefits of defending their civil case. “Rule 60(b) does not protect a party from tactical
decisions which in retrospect may seem ill advised.” Rule v. Tobin, 168 Vt. 166, 174, 719 A.2d
869, 874 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). A jury trial was not scheduled in this matter
because Mr. Jerome was granted summary judgment. Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston have not
presented clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Jerome perpetrated fraud which denied Mr.
Raheb and Ms. Houston a fair hearing, mediation and jury trial.

As to the claim that this docket was filed fraudulently, Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston
present a speculative memo from former counsel and the aerial view of the Mount Anthony Road
property. Reply Ex. 7, Ex. 10. These exhibits were presented to support a claim that Mr. Jerome
did not possess an easement over the driveway on Ms. Houston’s property. However, none of
the currently presented exhibits are more clear and convincing than Ms. Houston’s own deed,
which refers to an easement on the driveway, subservient to Mr. Jerome’s Mount Anthony Road
property. Findings and Order at 1 (July 9, 2025); Pl.’s Mot. Default J. or Alternative Partial
Summ. J. Ex. 11 at 2.

Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston also appear to argue that because Mr. Jerome has
headquartered his rental business at a different property than the Mount Anthony property, Reply
Ex. 8, the claim that Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston’s actions interfered with Mr. Jerome’s business
was filed fraudulently. The location of the headquarters of a business is not synonymous with all
locations where business activities take place. See Vt. Institute of Cmty. Involvement, Inc. v.
Dep’t. Emp. Sec., 140 Vt. 94, 99, 436 A.2d 765, 767 (1981) (“An employer’s place of business
includes not only the location of its offices, but also the entire area in which it conducts the
business”). The evidence presented does not contradict the basis of the findings that business did
take place at the Mount Anthony property, business was taking place on the day in question, and
Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston’s actions disrupted that business. Findings and Order at 2–3 (July
9, 2025).
Entry Regarding Motion Page 5 of 6
22-CV-00175 James Jerome, Jr. v. Kerry Raheb, et al
The court does not find Mr. Raheb and Ms. Houston have presented clear and convincing
evidence of fraud under either V.R.C.P. 60(3) or V.R.C.P. 60(6).

The Motion to Vacate is denied.

Signed electronically October 15, 2025 pursuant to V.R.E.F 9(d).

_________________________________________
David Barra
Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 6 of 6
22-CV-00175 James Jerome, Jr. v. Kerry Raheb, et al