context: We have affirmed the denial of similar post-trial motions without evidentiary hearings where the court had considered the proffered evidence and found that evidence other than that challenged in the motion sufficiently supported the initial order.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 641 A.2d 774, 776-77
citation_a.parenthetical: upholding denial of V.R.C.E 60(b) motion based on allegation that child had been manipulated into fabricating stories of abuse
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., In re D.M., 162 Vt. 33, 36-37, 641 A.2d 774, 776-77 (1994) (upholding denial of V.R.C.E 60(b) motion based on allegation that child had been manipulated into fabricating stories of abuse); cf. West v. West, 139 Vt. 334, 335, 428 A.2d 1116, 1117 (1981) (court should hold hearing where Rule 60 motion neither frivolous nor totally lacking in merit). Whether to hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding a motion to vacate is within the family court’s discretion.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 139 Vt. 334, 335
citation_b.parenthetical: court should hold hearing where Rule 60 motion neither frivolous nor totally lacking in merit
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., In re D.M., 162 Vt. 33, 36-37, 641 A.2d 774, 776-77 (1994) (upholding denial of V.R.C.E 60(b) motion based on allegation that child had been manipulated into fabricating stories of abuse); cf. West v. West, 139 Vt. 334, 335, 428 A.2d 1116, 1117 (1981) (court should hold hearing where Rule 60 motion neither frivolous nor totally lacking in merit). Whether to hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding a motion to vacate is within the family court’s discretion.