Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Bill Simmon, an employee of Vermont Community Access Media, Inc. (VCAM), invited Ciara Kilburn and her minor sister Brona to VCAM’s premises to record a commercial. Simmon secretly recorded the sisters changing clothes using VCAM’s equipment and shared the videos online, where they were viewed millions of times. In 2020, the Kilburns filed a lawsuit against Simmon for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligence per se, and against VCAM for vicarious liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, dismissed claims against Vermont State Colleges and did not instruct the jury on vicarious liability or NIED. The jury found Simmon liable for invasion of privacy and IIED, and VCAM liable for negligent supervision. Each plaintiff was awarded $1.75 million in compensatory damages against both Simmon and VCAM, and $2 million in punitive damages against Simmon. The court denied VCAM’s motions to exclude evidence, for a new trial, and for remittitur, and also denied plaintiffs’ request to hold VCAM jointly and severally liable for Simmon’s damages.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that emotional-distress damages were available to plaintiffs for VCAM’s negligent supervision because the claim was based on intentional torts (invasion of privacy and IIED) for which such damages are recoverable. The court found no error in the jury’s award of damages, concluding that the evidence supported the verdict and that the damages were not excessive. The court also ruled that plaintiffs waived their claim for joint and several liability by not objecting to the jury instructions or verdict form before deliberations. View "Kilburn v. Simmon" on Justia Law

The case involves a wrongful-death action brought by the Estate of Jared Shaffer, through Daniel Shaffer as administrator, against Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Inc. Jared Shaffer, a developmentally disabled adult, died on April 18, 2017, from a sudden pulmonary embolism caused by metastatic testicular cancer. The estate claimed that the defendant, responsible for overseeing Jared's Medicaid waiver funds and coordinating his care, was negligent in its duties, leading to Jared's death.Initially, the estate sued Heartbeet Lifesharing, Dr. Peter Sher, and the defendant in federal court, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after a settlement with Dr. Sher’s medical practice. The estate then filed the wrongful-death action in the civil division against the defendant and Heartbeet. Before the trial, the estate settled with Heartbeet, leaving the case to be tried solely against the defendant. The defendant asserted a comparative negligence defense, implicating Daniel Shaffer, Jared's father and co-guardian, in Jared's death.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case after the estate appealed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The estate argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on comparative negligence, providing misleading jury instructions, and sustaining objections to certain questions posed to the defendant’s corporate representative. The estate also contended that the jury deliberated too quickly and that the evidence overwhelmingly supported its claim of negligence.The Vermont Supreme Court found that while the trial court erred in conflating the identity of the plaintiff with Daniel Shaffer, the estate was not prejudiced because the jury never reached the question of comparative negligence, having found no negligence on the defendant's part. The court also upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings and found no error in the jury's deliberation process. The jury's verdict in favor of the defendant was affirmed. View "Shaffer v. Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Applicants sought an Act 250 permit to construct a farm store on Route 5 in Hartland, Vermont. The proposed project includes a 9000 square-foot, two-story building with a deli, bakery, eating area, and parking lot. The store will sell products primarily from the applicants' nearby farm, Sunnymede Farm. The project site is a vacant lot near the Interstate 91 interchange, with significant traffic and no existing sidewalks.The District 3 Environmental Commission approved the project and issued the permit. The Hartland Planning Commission (HPC) appealed to the Environmental Division, arguing the project did not meet Act 250 Criteria 9(L) and 10. The Environmental Division granted summary judgment to the applicants, finding the project satisfied both criteria. The HPC then appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that the project made efficient use of land, energy, roads, utilities, and other supporting infrastructure, as required by Criterion 9(L). Although the project met the definition of strip development, the court found it would not contribute to a pattern of strip development due to its agricultural nature and specific conditions limiting its use. The court also determined that the project conformed with the local town plan under Criterion 10, despite the HPC's argument to the contrary. The court affirmed the Environmental Division's grant of summary judgment to the applicants. View "In re SM Farms Shop, LLC Permit Appeal" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Shayne Lynn, was the founder and majority owner of High Fidelity, Inc., a Vermont cannabis business. In late 2020, defendants Peter Miller and Christopher Driessen, who controlled Slang Worldwide, Inc., proposed a merger between High Fidelity and Slang. They assured Lynn that Slang was financially sound and promised an $18 million investment into High Fidelity. Based on these representations, Lynn agreed to the merger in June 2021. However, Lynn later discovered that Slang was financially unstable and needed to borrow $18 million to survive. Lynn was subsequently terminated from his position.The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, dismissed Lynn's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that Lynn did not allege any actionable misrepresentations to support a fraud claim and failed to allege justifiable reliance or the existence of a duty to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lynn appealed the decision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the statements made by Miller and Driessen about Slang's financial health were opinions and not actionable misrepresentations of fact. The promise of an $18 million investment was a future promise, not a misrepresentation of existing fact, and Lynn did not allege that Miller and Driessen intended to renege on the promise when it was made. The court also found that Lynn's claim of misleading financial data was not pled with particularity as required by Rule 9(b).Regarding the negligent misrepresentation claim, the court held that Lynn did not adequately allege justifiable reliance, as he did not claim that the truth about Slang's financial status was unavailable to him. The court affirmed the dismissal of Lynn's complaint. View "Lynn v. Slang Worldwide, Inc." on Justia Law

Landowners Stephen and Sharon Wille Padnos appealed two Environmental Division decisions that granted summary judgment to landowner Jason Struthers. The court ruled that the City of Essex Junction could not regulate Struthers' duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations. The court found that the duck-raising operation was exempt from municipal regulation under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) as it constituted a commercial farming operation subject to the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) Rule. Additionally, the court concluded that the City could not enforce its zoning regulations on Struthers' cannabis-cultivation operations under 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2).The City’s zoning regulations do not permit agricultural, farming, or cannabis-cultivation establishments in the Residential-1 Zoning District. The City’s zoning officer initially declined to enforce these regulations against Struthers. The City’s Development Review Board (DRB) reversed the zoning officer’s decision regarding the duck-raising operation but upheld it for the cannabis-cultivation operation. The Environmental Division later granted summary judgment in favor of Struthers in both cases, concluding that the City could not regulate the duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that neither 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) nor 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) exempts Struthers' operations from all municipal regulation. The court clarified that § 4413(d)(1)(A) prohibits municipal regulation of the specific agricultural practices required by the RAPs Rule, not all farming activities subject to the RAPs Rule. Similarly, § 869(f)(2) prevents municipal regulation of licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators only concerning the water-quality standards established by the RAPs Rule, not all aspects of cannabis cultivation. Consequently, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Environmental Division’s decisions and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re 8 Taft Street DRB & NOV Appeals" on Justia Law

A group of neighbors appealed the Environmental Division’s decision affirming the District 4 Environmental Commission’s granting of an Act 250 permit amendment to JAM Golf, LLC for the construction of a housing development on a lot that was formerly part of the Wheeler Nature Park in South Burlington, Vermont. The neighbors argued that the landowner was required to show changed circumstances to amend the permit and that the development did not comply with Act 250 Criteria 8 and 10.The Environmental Division held six days of trial and conducted a site visit. In August 2024, the court affirmed the Act 250 permit amendment with conditions related to noise and safety during the construction period, concluding that the project complied with all relevant Act 250 criteria. The court also determined that the application should not be denied on the grounds of inequitable conduct because the neighbors failed to support assertions that the landowner made material misrepresentations in its application and on appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the permit-amendment argument was not preserved for appeal because it was not included in the statement of questions presented to the Environmental Division. The court also found that the Environmental Division did not err in allowing the landowner to elect to be assessed against the updated 2024 City Plan rather than the 2016 City Plan. The court determined that the evidence supported the Environmental Division’s findings that the project complied with Act 250 Criteria 8 and 10, including visual aesthetics, noise, and compliance with the local or regional plan. The court affirmed the Environmental Division’s decision. View "In re Wheeler Parcel Act 250 Determination" on Justia Law

Anna Dewdney, a children's book author, created a revocable trust in 2011, designating her daughters, Berol and Cordelia Dewdney, and her romantic partner, Ralph Duncan, IV, as beneficiaries. Initially, the trust allocated 40% of the income to each daughter and 20% to Duncan. Anna amended the trust several times, ultimately increasing Duncan's share to 50% and reducing each daughter's share to 25%. Anna passed away in 2016, and Duncan became the sole trustee. Plaintiffs allege Duncan pressured Anna to increase his share and entered into an oral agreement to make them his sole heirs in exchange for the increased distribution.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment to Duncan on all claims brought by the plaintiffs, including intentional interference with expectation of inheritance (IIEI), breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and constructive fraud. The court ruled that plaintiffs needed to seek a remedy in probate court for their IIEI claim, failed to establish breach of contract due to anticipatory repudiation, could not show detrimental reliance for promissory estoppel, were receiving benefits from the trust for unjust enrichment, and did not meet the legal requirements for constructive fraud.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. It recognized the tort of IIEI but held that plaintiffs must first seek a remedy in probate court due to the exclusive jurisdiction over trust administration. The court found no anticipatory breach of contract as Duncan's statement did not constitute a positive and unequivocal refusal to perform. It ruled promissory estoppel inapplicable due to the existence of a contract and lack of detrimental reliance. The unjust enrichment claim was barred as it involved trust administration, and the constructive fraud claim failed for similar jurisdictional reasons. View "Dewdney v. Duncan" on Justia Law

Landowners Anne and Mark Guillemette appealed an Environmental Division order denying their motion to dismiss neighbor Michael Casey’s appeal and remanding the matter to the Monkton Development Review Board (DRB) for consideration on the merits. Casey had challenged the zoning administrator’s decision that the Guillemettes’ wood-processing facility was exempt from enforcement due to the fifteen-year limitations period. Casey filed his appeal late, relying on incorrect instructions from the zoning administrator.The Environmental Division concluded that 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C) allowed Casey’s appeal to proceed despite the untimely filing, as disallowing the appeal would result in manifest injustice. The court remanded the matter to the DRB for consideration on the merits.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Environmental Division’s decision. The Supreme Court held that 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C) does not apply to appeals from the decisions of municipal administrative officers, such as zoning administrators. Instead, it applies only to appeals from municipal regulatory proceedings to the Environmental Division. Therefore, the finality provision at 24 V.S.A. § 4472 barred Casey’s untimely appeal, and the Environmental Division lacked jurisdiction to permit the appeal to proceed. View "In re Guillemette ZA Determination Appeal" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over parental rights and responsibilities following the divorce of a couple with two children. The mother and father began their relationship in 2011, moved to Vermont in 2014, and married in 2016. They have two children born in 2016 and 2018. The father was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2016 and has been on disability since 2018. The mother also faced serious health issues, including thyroid cancer, and has not worked since 2018. In 2020, the mother expressed a desire to move to Michigan for family support, which led to conflicts and eventual separation in 2021. The father filed for divorce in 2022.The Superior Court, Grand Isle Unit, Family Division, awarded primary legal rights and responsibilities to the father, citing the mother's proposed relocation to Michigan as a factor. The court found that the children were well-adjusted to their current environment in Vermont and that the father's parents played a significant role in their lives. The court also granted the mother the right to make medical and dental decisions for the children to encourage her continued involvement.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and found several issues with the lower court's decision. The court noted that the family division did not adequately consider the primary-care-provider factor, made erroneous findings regarding the mother's proposed move to Michigan, and divided legal responsibilities without sufficient reasoning. Additionally, the court failed to explicitly assign physical rights and responsibilities. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding that the father was less willing and able to foster a positive relationship between the children and the mother but reversed and remanded the award of parental rights and responsibilities for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "Gordon v. Fogell" on Justia Law

Applicant sought permission from the Town’s Development Review Board (DRB) to build a senior-living facility in Castleton, Vermont, which included independent-living, assisted-living, and memory-care units. The DRB approved the project with conditions, including that each unit have a kitchen, but did not approve the memory-care unit, classifying it as a nursing home, which exceeded the allowed number of residents.Applicant appealed to the Environmental Division, which reviewed the case de novo. The court struck the condition requiring kitchens in each unit and concluded that the project was a multi-family dwelling, not a nursing home, based on state law definitions. Neighbors did not appeal but challenged the project’s height and the classification of the memory-care unit. The court dismissed the height challenge for lack of jurisdiction and found that the project met the multi-family dwelling definition.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the Environmental Division’s decision on the jurisdictional issue, agreeing that the height challenge was outside the scope of the court’s review. However, it found that the Environmental Division erred in using state law definitions instead of the town’s zoning bylaws to classify the memory-care unit. The Supreme Court reversed the decision regarding the memory-care unit and remanded for further findings on whether it met the bylaw’s definition of a nursing home, which requires in-house nursing care for residents suffering from illness or disease. The court also upheld the Environmental Division’s decision to strike the kitchen condition for the independent and assisted-living units but required further consideration of the memory-care unit’s compliance with the cooking requirement in the zoning ordinance. View "In re Dousevicz, Inc." on Justia Law