Richard Welch, Jr. v. Nicole Foster and Brian Bishop

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 25-AP-340
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.
ENTRY ORDER
MAY TERM, 2026
Richard Welch, Jr.* v. Nicole Foster and
Brian Bishop
}
}
APPEALED FROM:
} Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division
} CASE NO. 25-CV-00259
Trial Judge: David A. Barra
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Plaintiff Richard Welch Jr. appeals a civil division order granting summary judgment to
defendants Nicole Foster and Brian Bishop. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in
granting judgment without a hearing and in reliance on erroneous facts. We affirm.
On January 17, 2025, plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that they made false
reports of child abuse and sexual abuse to the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and
in relief-from-abuse (RFA) petitions about him and this caused him to lose his job and
experience medical effects such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and mental anguish. The
complaint indicated that these false allegations were made in 2017 and 2018. Plaintiff asserted
reputational and financial consequences due to defendants’ allegations and sought monetary
damages.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Vermont’s three-year statute of
limitations barred plaintiff’s defamation claims from 2017 and 2018. See 12 V.S.A. § 512(3)
(requiring actions for “slander and libel” to be “commenced within three years after the cause of
action accrues”). Defendants appended a statement of undisputed facts, which included the
following. In 2017 and 2018, defendants filed police reports, sought RFA petitions, and made
complaints to DCF alleging that plaintiff engaged in child abuse and sexual assault against
defendant Bishop’s biological daughter. Plaintiff was made aware of these allegations at the
time when DCF was investigating the reports. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and awaiting

2
sentence following his conviction for aggravated sexual assault against the child who was the
subject of the complaints and reports.
Plaintiff did not file his own statement of undisputed facts or counter any of the facts
provided by defendants. Therefore, the court accepted defendants’ statement as true. Based on
these facts, the civil division concluded that the three-year statute of limitations for defamation
had expired, even assuming plaintiff met the other requirements for a defamation claim. The
court did not credit plaintiff’s conclusory statements that his sleep apnea was related to his
claims and that plaintiff experienced ongoing harm from text messages sent by defendants. The
court therefore entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
On appeal from a decision on summary judgment, this Court’s review is de novo using
“the same standard as the trial court.” Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 2005 VT 83, ¶ 13, 178 Vt.
244. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is not dispute of material fact and a party is
“entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” V.R.C.P. 56(a). When one party provides a statement
of undisputed fact supported by evidence in the record and the other party does not address it, the
court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” V.R.C.P. 56(e).
Plaintiff first argues that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing prior to entering
judgment. A hearing is not required before the court decides summary judgment. V.R.C.P. 56
(providing procedures for summary judgment and not requiring hearing); see Lussier v. Truax,
161 Vt. 611, 612 (1993) (mem.) (declining to reverse summary judgment for lack of hearing
since none was required). Therefore, we conclude there was no error.
Plaintiff next contends that the court’s findings were clearly erroneous, and its
conclusions were not supported by the record. Plaintiff’s argument misunderstands the
procedural posture of the case. When a party moves for summary judgment, the court enters
judgment based on the undisputed facts; the court does not make factual findings based on an
assessment of the evidence. Here, based on defendants’ statement of undisputed facts, the court
determined that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, which requires
slander and libel claims to be commenced within three years after injury is discovered. 12
V.S.A. § 512 (3), (4). Because plaintiff admitted that he knew of defendants’ statements and
reports in 2017 and 2018 and suffered harms during that time, the court concluded that the
 Plaintiff claims that the court erred in denying his Rule 60(b) motion, however, the
record demonstrates that there was no motion filed in the civil division under Vermont Rule of
Civil Procedure 60. The court’s decision was in response to a motion for summary judgment
filed under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Therefore, our analysis centers on that rule.
Plaintiff also claims that the civil division violated Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure
33(b) in failing to provide oral argument. This rule is inapplicable to proceedings in the civil
division. See V.R.A.P. 1(a) (providing that appellate rules “govern procedure in all appeals to
the Supreme Court”).

3
limitations period had long expired by the time plaintiff filed suit in 2025. Because the
undisputed facts support the court’s legal decision, there are no grounds to disturb the judgment.
Affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice
Christina E. Nolan, Associate Justice
Michael P. Drescher, Associate Justice