Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The parties were married in 2004 and separated in April 2023. They initiated divorce proceedings, and after a hearing in April 2024, the family division of the Superior Court approved stipulated agreements on parental rights, contact, and some marital assets. The court then heard evidence on contested issues, including the division of the husband’s retirement accounts and spousal maintenance. In May 2024, the court issued a final divorce order, finding the current balances of the husband's three retirement accounts and providing for an equitable division of marital property, with the wife to receive 50% of the value of the husband's accounts as of the date of separation.After the final order, both parties filed motions to amend: the husband sought credit for maintenance payments under Rule 59, which the court granted. Later, the wife moved under Rule 60, arguing that the property division reflected an intent to use the balances as of the date of the final hearing, not separation. The husband responded, challenging the motion's timeliness and arguing that the wife failed to comply with the dispute-resolution procedure. The Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Family Division, granted the wife's motion and amended the order to reflect the values as of the date of the final hearing, reasoning this correction merely conformed the order to the court’s intent.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether the lower court erred in amending the divorce order under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). The Supreme Court held that the court’s correction was proper under Rule 60(a), as it reflected the court’s original intent and was a clerical error rather than a substantive change. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended divorce order and found any alleged procedural errors in handling the wife’s motion harmless, given the court’s authority to correct such errors at any time. View "Warner v. Warner" on Justia Law

A husband and wife entered into a premarital agreement before their 2018 marriage, which set forth a comprehensive division of assets in case of divorce. The agreement categorized both parties’ assets and anticipated inheritances as separate property, except for their marital home. It specified that, upon divorce, the wife would receive 50% of the increase in the appraised value of the marital home, paid by the husband in installments. The agreement also required proportional contributions to living expenses, allocation of taxes, and provided for attorney’s fees if either party breached the agreement.After their separation in 2021, the husband filed for divorce in 2023. Both parties sought enforcement of the premarital agreement in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Family Division. The wife moved to enforce the agreement, including her share of the marital home’s appreciation and attorney’s fees, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over the home designated as separate property. The husband claimed offsets for damages the wife allegedly caused to the home and for her failure to pay household expenses and taxes. The family division granted the wife’s motion, enforced the agreement in her favor, and awarded attorney’s fees, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the husband’s counterclaims, which it said belonged in civil court.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the family division had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the premarital agreement—including claims of breach—within the context of divorce proceedings under Vermont statutes. The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the family division to determine whether the wife materially breached the premarital agreement and to consider appropriate remedies, if any, consistent with principles governing such contracts. View "Gade v. Gade" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged in December 2017 with one count of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, based on allegations that she had inappropriately touched a six-year-old girl, A.G., who was the daughter of her then-boyfriend. Before trial, the court allowed both the admission of the child’s statements from a 2017 police interview and permitted A.G. to testify. In 2019, the State requested that A.G. testify outside the defendant’s presence via video, citing potential trauma. After a hearing in 2020, the trial court granted this request, finding that testifying in front of the defendant would traumatize and impair A.G.’s ability to testify. In 2023, as A.G. had aged, the defense sought a new hearing on this issue. At the new hearing, a school counselor testified about A.G.’s general emotional state and possible trauma but did not specifically link trauma to testifying in the defendant’s presence.The Superior Court, Orleans Unit, Criminal Division, relying on the counselor’s testimony, again permitted A.G. to testify outside the defendant’s presence. A jury trial followed in October 2023, during which A.G. testified by video and the jury found the defendant guilty. The court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial, concluding that although the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant’s post-arrest silence, this was harmless error.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether the requirements of Vermont Rule of Evidence 807 and the Confrontation Clause were met. The Court held that the trial court’s finding—that requiring A.G. to testify in the defendant’s presence would cause trauma substantially impairing her ability to testify—was clearly erroneous because the evidence did not specifically support such trauma would result from the defendant’s presence. As a result, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the defendant’s right to confrontation was violated. View "State v. Sylvester" on Justia Law

An energy developer proposed to construct a solar facility in Bennington, Vermont, near an existing solar facility that it had previously built. Both the new and existing facilities were located on adjacent parcels, shared similar ownership structures, and would use connected infrastructure to access the electric grid. The developer submitted bids for three projects; only the first was initially awarded a contract and then built. Later, the developer resubmitted bids for the other two projects, which were awarded contracts. When the developer sought a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for the second facility, concerns were raised about whether this new facility and the existing one constituted a “single plant” under state law, which would make them ineligible for the state’s Standard Offer Program due to a cap on plant capacity.The Vermont Public Utility Commission reviewed the CPG application for the new facility. It held evidentiary hearings and ultimately concluded that, under the statutory definition, the two facilities were a single plant because they had common ownership, were developed in a contiguous timeframe, were physically proximate, and shared necessary grid infrastructure. This meant the combined facility exceeded the program’s capacity limit. The Commission denied the CPG and rejected the developer’s motion for reconsideration, prompting an appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the Commission’s decision. It affirmed, holding that the Commission applied the correct two-prong “single plant” test as previously explained in its own precedents, properly considered all statutory factors, and acted within its discretion in finding the facilities to be a single plant. The Court rejected arguments about due process violations, claim and issue preclusion, and the application of alternative legal standards. The Supreme Court also found no error in the procedures followed by the Commission and did not grant a remand or new hearing. The decision of the Public Utility Commission was affirmed. View "In re Petition of Otter Creek Solar LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves the eligibility of H.D. for Vermont’s General Assistance Emergency Housing Program as of July 1, 2025. The Department for Children and Families (DCF) determined that H.D. had exceeded the program’s eighty-day housing limit by counting days she received before the start of fiscal year 2026 (FY26). H.D. contended that only the days received during FY26 should count toward the limit, based on the language of the Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriations Act. At the time of the appeal, H.D. had exhausted her eighty days under the Board’s interpretation, no longer lived in emergency housing, and was ineligible for further benefits under the statute.The Human Services Board reviewed DCF’s determination and ruled in H.D.’s favor. The Board interpreted the statute to mean that only days received during FY26 should be counted, making H.D. eligible for emergency housing at the time of her application. DCF then appealed this decision to the Vermont Supreme Court.The Vermont Supreme Court determined that the case was moot. It found that, because H.D. had already exhausted her eighty-day benefit and was no longer eligible for emergency housing under the statute, there was no longer an actual controversy between the parties. The Court also rejected DCF’s argument that the case was “capable of repetition but evading review,” concluding that DCF failed to show a reasonable expectation that H.D. would be subject to the same action again. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to live controversies and that it cannot issue an advisory opinion on the statutory interpretation for future cases. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as moot. View "In re Appeal of H.D." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of her minor children and a proposed class of individuals who were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) while attending or working at certain Vermont public schools. The complaint alleged that defendants, as successors to Old Monsanto, manufactured and sold PCBs from facilities outside Vermont to third-party manufacturers, who incorporated PCBs into products such as fluorescent light ballasts and caulk. These products were later used in Vermont schools, where PCBs subsequently leaked into the air, allegedly resulting in toxic exposure.In the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Vermont’s medical-monitoring statute only applied to releases of toxic substances directly from facilities located within Vermont, and did not apply retroactively to exposures or sales occurring prior to the statute’s enactment in 2022. The District Court certified two questions to the Vermont Supreme Court for interpretation of the statute.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the certified questions. The Court held, first, that the sale of a toxic substance from facilities outside Vermont, which was then incorporated into products that leaked PCBs into the air of Vermont schools, qualified as a “release” within the meaning of Vermont’s medical-monitoring statute. Second, the Court held that the statute does not provide a remedy to plaintiffs whose exposure occurred before the statute’s enactment, but it does allow claims against defendants who sold a toxic substance before enactment, if the plaintiff’s exposure occurred after July 1, 2022. The Court provided these answers in response to the certified questions and clarified the scope and retroactivity of the statute. View "Neddo, as Guardian & Next Friend to Z.N." on Justia Law

A company sought approval to construct a 500 kW solar-energy project in Randolph, Vermont. The proposed project required a certificate of public good (CPG) from the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC). A portion of the project's infrastructure, such as its access road and interconnection line, would be located on land with slopes exceeding 25%. Local and regional planning commissions, as well as the Town of Randolph Selectboard, initially supported the project and jointly requested the site be designated as a “preferred site.” After neighbors raised concerns that some panels would be located on steep slopes in conflict with the Town Plan, the applicant agreed to revise the project so that no panels would be built on slopes over 25%. The Town conditioned its continued support on this revision and on receiving the final site plan.The PUC’s hearing officer initially recommended denying the CPG due to uncertainty about whether the Town’s conditions regarding slope measurement had been met. The PUC rejected this recommendation, refocusing on whether the Town itself was satisfied with the conditions. The applicant subsequently provided a letter from the Town confirming its support and satisfaction with the conditions. The PUC found the project's compliance with soil-erosion control measures sufficient, particularly in light of a stormwater permit issued by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), and ruled that the project would not unduly interfere with the region’s orderly development. The PUC granted the CPG; the neighbors’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, giving deference to the PUC’s expertise and factual findings. The Court affirmed the PUC’s grant of the CPG, holding that the PUC correctly applied the legal standards under 30 V.S.A. § 248, properly considered the Town Plan’s land-conservation measures, reasonably relied on the Town’s assurances and ANR’s permit, and did not misapply its own rules regarding “preferred site” status. View "In re Petition of Randolph Davis Solar LLC" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were divorced in 2018. Following the divorce, one party, Mr. Dasler, repeatedly attempted to relitigate matters that had already been resolved by final court orders, filing numerous motions for reconsideration and appeals, most of which were denied for lack of new arguments or facts. He also made unsubstantiated allegations against his former spouse, Ms. Knapp, and initiated related litigation in multiple courts over substantially similar issues. Based on this conduct, a trial court found that Mr. Dasler engaged in abusive litigation intended to harass or intimidate Ms. Knapp and issued an order restricting his ability to file further litigation against her without meeting certain conditions.Ms. Knapp then requested attorney’s fees and costs under Vermont’s abusive-litigation statute, 15 V.S.A. § 1184(b)(1), submitting detailed billing records to support her claim. Mr. Dasler objected, arguing that some fees were unrelated, excessive, and that he could not afford to pay them. The Vermont Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Family Division, reviewed the fees, applied the lodestar method, and limited the award to fees connected to the abusive litigation proceedings. The court found the fees reasonable, declined to adjust the amount based on Mr. Dasler’s financial circumstances, and awarded $5940 in attorney’s fees plus $30 in costs. Mr. Dasler’s motion for reconsideration, which argued the court was required to make specific findings regarding his ability to pay, was denied.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that when awarding attorney’s fees under 15 V.S.A. § 1184(b)(1), the proper standard is reasonableness and there is no requirement for individualized findings regarding the litigant’s ability to pay. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s analysis or fee award. The judgment in favor of Ms. Knapp was affirmed. View "Knapp v. Dasler" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, a felony under Vermont law. At arraignment, the State sought to have the defendant held without bail pending trial, arguing that the charged offense involved an act of violence, which would permit pretrial detention under Vermont’s constitutional and statutory exceptions to the general right to bail. The parties agreed that the offense was a felony and that the evidence of guilt was great, but the defendant contended that lewd or lascivious conduct with a child did not qualify as a crime involving an act of violence for purposes of denying bail.The Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Criminal Division, denied the State’s motion to hold the defendant without bail. The court concluded that, despite a statutory provision designating lewd or lascivious conduct with a child as a violent act for bail purposes, the offense did not have an essential element involving an act of violence as required by the Vermont Constitution. The court relied on prior single-justice decisions, including State v. Madigan, which interpreted “violence” narrowly to require physical force or contact, and declined to give effect to the legislative designation in 13 V.S.A. § 2602(f).On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the definition of “violence” in the context of bail eligibility. The Court held that lewd or lascivious conduct with a child is a felony with an element involving an act of violence, as the offense inherently involves an abusive or unjust use of power over a child, even if physical contact is not required. The Court overruled the contrary reasoning in State v. Madigan, reaffirmed a broader definition of violence, and concluded that the statutory designation in § 2602(f) was consistent with constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings on the State’s request to hold the defendant without bail. View "State v. Shores" on Justia Law

A cannabis cultivation business was licensed to operate in Vermont but became the subject of regulatory action after laboratory testing detected myclobutanil, a prohibited pesticide, in its products. The business had previously entered into a corrective action plan with the regulatory board following similar violations in 2023, agreeing to remediation, penalties, and compliance measures. In 2024, after further detections of myclobutanil in both retail and on-site samples, the regulatory board issued a notice of violation with immediate effect, including a stop-sale order for all of the business’s products, a recall requirement, and a proposed license revocation.The business contested the notice and requested a hearing before the Cannabis Control Board. At the hearing, it raised several arguments, including challenges to the Board’s authority under the Vermont Constitution, claims of bias by the Board chair, and alleged due process violations. The Board chair denied a motion for recusal, and after hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the Board found that the business had violated its corrective action plan and used unauthorized pesticides. The Board dismissed one violation as duplicative but upheld others, ultimately revoking the business’s license. The business appealed to an appellate officer, who affirmed the Board’s decision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, applying a standard that precludes reweighing factual findings unless clearly erroneous or affected by legal error. The Court held that the Board acted within its statutory authority in issuing a stop-sale order for all products, that the Board’s interpretation of its regulations was reasonable, and that the business failed to preserve or adequately brief its constitutional and evidentiary arguments. The Court also found no due process violation regarding the impartiality of the Board chair, as the business did not make an evidentiary record to support its claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of the business’s license. View "In re Holland Cannabis, LLC" on Justia Law