contend either are or are not in dispute.” Reporter’s Notes, V.R.C.P. 56, 1995 Amendment. Unfortunately, trial courts are often in the position of adjudicating summary-judgment motions on the basis of nonconforming documents. See, e.g., Millett v. Gorczyk, No. 44-2-01 Oscv, 2001 WL 36085152 (Vt. Super. Ct. Nov. 8, 2001); Bartus v. Owl’s Nest Lodge (1999), Inc., No. 169-3-04 Rdcv, 2005 WL 5895208 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005); Houston v. Town of Waitsfield, No. 540-9-05 Wncv, 2006 WL 4911326 (Vt. Super. Ct. Feb. 7, 2006). This Court will not disturb a trial court’s reliance on a nonconforming summary-judgment motion absent an objection, Kelly v. Town of Barnard, 155 Vt. 296, 301-02, 583 A.2d 614, 617 (1990), or absent prejudice. See In re Buell, No. 2003-079 (Vt. Dec. 4, 2003) (unreported mem.) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 7. We find no reversible error here. GNP’s
holding that summary judgment for state appropriate notwithstanding states failure to annex a statement of undisputed facts to its summaryjudgment motion where petitioner was aware of facts relied upon by state and never disputed them holding that a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion for summary judgment when plaintiffs counsel relied upon facts outside the four corners of the complaint during oral argument of the motion holding that a district court should disregard or ignore evidence relied on by the respondent when not properly cited in response to a movants statement of undisputed facts holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law holding district court not required to uncover disputed facts when considering summary judgment motion