Rivard v. State

7ermont Superior Court
Filed O5/1 26
Windham eat

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Windham Unit Case No. 26-CV-01741
Court Street
Newfane VT 05345
802-365-7979
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Jeffrey Rivard v. State of Vermont, et al.
ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion for Default Judgment; Memorandum in Opposition to Renewed
Motion for Default Judgment; Reply to Memo in Opposition (Motion: 4)
Filer: Jeffrey Rivard; Robert C. Menzel; Jeffrey Rivard
Filed Date: April 22, 2026; May 05, 2026; May 05, 2026

Plaintiff Jeffrey Rivard continues his quixotic attempts to seek redress for perceived
wrongs by stateactors.Consistent with other matters he has filed in this Unit of the
Civil Division, Plaintiff "invoke[s] the court's jurisdiction to adjudicate free-floating
grievances untethered from any law." Rivard v. Town of Brattleboro, No. 22-CV-03222,
2023 WL 8719882, *4 (Vt. Super. Ct., Windh. Civ. Div. Nov. 07, 2023) (Barra, Supr. J.),
affd 2024 WL 1012380 (Vt.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2611 (2024). Plaintiff has filed a
motion for default judgment in this matter in which he has filed a complaint against
various Defendants all individual Defendants are purportedly Department of
-

Corrections' personnel. The motion is DENIED.?

First, all named Defendants have answered and are represented by counsel. See May 18,
2026, Answer and Statement of Affirmative Defenses. The Vermont Supreme Court has
"a strong preference that litigation be decided on the merits and not by default
judgment." Hermitage Inn Real Est. Holding Co., LLC v. Extreme Contracting, LLC,
2017 VT 44, 134. See also Dougherty v. Surgen, 147 Vt. 365, 366 (1986) ("[d]Jue process
favors the rights of the defendants to be heard in their own defense. '[D]enial of that
right, and rejection of the remedies for default, must have strong support.' Childs v.
Hart, 131 Vt. 241, 243 (1973)"); Desjarlais v. Gilman, 143 Vt. 154, 158-59 (1983) ("the
rules relating to default judgments should be liberally construed in favor of defendants,
and of the desirability of resolving litigation on the merits, to the end that fairness and
justice are served"). Since Defendants have answered, the court declines to grant
Plaintiff's motion.

Second, even if the court were to consider the merits of Plaintiff's motion it must be
denied. "The court shall not enter judgment by default against a party who has not

1
Plaintiff has already sought relief in the Civil Division related to the scheduling and conduct of
probation violation proceedings. He did not prevail. Rivard v. Dept. of Corrections, 25-CV-
03119, 2025 WL 3700253 (Vt. Super. Ct., Windh. Civ. Div. Dec. 10, 2025) (dismissing complaint
pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(4)).
2
In light of the court's ruling on the motion, the motion seeking clarification of deadlines or
extensions of deadlines (# 2) is moot.

1
appeared in the action until the moving party files an affidavit made on personal
knowledge and setting forth facts as to liability and damages.” V.R.C.P. 55(c)(1)
(emphasis supplied). “An affidavit is required that includes facts establishing liability …,
and it must be made by a person with personal knowledge.” Midland Funding LLC v.
Cota, 2016 WL 9459779, at *1 (Vt. Super. Ct., Rut. Civ. Div. Apr. 12, 2016) (Teachout,
Supr. J.). While Plaintiff has filed an affidavit that purports to be made on personal
knowledge, the contents are insufficient to establish liability on the part of any
Defendants. The “facts” set forth in the affidavit are substantially generic – it provides
no specific allegation as to the conduct of any named Defendant. Plaintiff acknowledges
that a probation violation complaint was filed in this matter before the original term of
probation expired.3 Plaintiff argues – citing no authority – that his probation expired on
August 8, 2025. To say that Plaintiff’s argument that a probation term expires
notwithstanding the pendency of violation complaint proceedings is a contested
proposition is an understatement. Simply, no Vermont precedent supports Plaintiff’s
argument. Additionally, the Windham Criminal Division subsequently expressly
extended the term of probation. Rivard v. Dept. of Corrections, 2025 WL 3700253, at *1
n. 2 (Vt. Super. Ct., Windh. Civ. Div. Dec. 10, 2025). Plaintiff’s argument regarding the

3 As this court has previously found

A first probation violation complaint was filed [in State v. Rivard, No. 1370-11-19
Wmcr,] on August 9, 2023 - the day after Petitioner was sentenced. Petitioner
was arraigned on the violation on August 15, 2023, and entered a denial. A
second probation violation complaint was filed on November 2, 2023. Petitioner
was arraigned on the violation on November 7, 2023, and entered a denial. On
January 8, 2024, the court granted Petitioner's motion to represent himself at a
revocation hearing scheduled for the following day. At the merits hearing the
State dismissed the first complaint and Petitioner entered an admission to the
second complaint. “The court found the violation and conducted a conference
with [Petitioner] in order to reemphasize to [Petitioner] the necessity of
compliance with conditions of probation.” January 9, 2024, Entry Order. See also
28 V.S.A. § 304(b)(3).
A third probation violation complaint was filed on August 8, 2024 - one
year after Petitioner was sentenced. Petitioner was arraigned on August 13, 2024,
and entered a denial. Counsel was assigned to represent Petitioner. The court
also issued an Entry Regarding Motion in the matter responding to a pro se filing
by Petitioner. The court noted that
To the extent that [Petitioner]'s pleading constitutes a motion seeking
relief from the court, the motion is denied without prejudice. [Petitioner]
is now represented by counsel, has not waived his right to counsel, and
has not asked to represent himself. The court has not approved hybrid
representation. All pleadings must be filed and signed by counsel.
V.R.Cr.P. 49(d). The court will not consider pleadings filed directly by
[Petitioner] while represented by counsel.
August 13, 2024, Entry Order (emphasis supplied).
A fourth probation violation complaint was filed on December 5, 2024.
Petitioner was arraigned that same day and entered a denial. Counsel was
assigned to represent Petitioner.
Rivard v. Dept. of Corrections, 2025 WL 3700253, at *1–2 (Vt. Super. Ct., Windh. Civ. Div. Dec.
10, 2025).

2
absence of a “finding of fact” regarding the probation violations is incomprehensible. A
judge found probable cause for each violation. The first violation was dismissed by the
State. Plaintiff entered an admission to the second violation. The third and fourth
violations remain pending. Plaintiff’s arguments related to the scheduling of merits
hearings are meritless. As Plaintiff is certainly well aware, “[t]he court schedules
probation hearings. [Department of Corrections personnel] do not.” Rivard v. Dept. of
Corrections, 2025 WL 3700253, at *7 n. 10. Additionally, the State is represented by the
Windham County State’s Attorney’s Office in the probation violation proceedings not by
Department of Corrections personnel. 28 V.S.A. § 302(c). Thus, even if the Department
could have had some role in requesting that the court schedule a merits hearing such a
request would have been made by the State’s Attorney’s Office not Department
personnel. Plaintiff’s affidavit does not establish liability.

Electronically signed: 5/19/2026 1:55:15 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

_________________________________________
John R. Treadwell
Superior Court Judge

3