Father Eric Merchant and mother Sheila Merchant married in 2000. They subsequently had two children. The parties separated in 2008, and in August 2009 the superior court issued a stipulated final divorce order providing for shared physical rights and responsibilities for their children and a contact schedule allocating fifty percent of the children's time to each parent. The stipulated order provided that each party would bear the cost of child-care expenses for the children during those times that the children were with them pursuant to the contact schedule. It further provided that mother would be entitled to claim the minor children as dependents for state and federal income-tax purposes. The child-support-obligation guideline calculation was $112.52 per month from father to mother. The guideline calculation, which was attached to the final child-support order, took into account the parents' respective qualifying child-care costs. Father agreed to an upward deviation from the guideline amount, to $200 per month plus $43 per month in arrears, which would automatically rise to $243 per month when the arrears of $1852 were paid (after forty-three months). At issue in this appeal, father challenged the findings and conclusions of the family-division magistrate, as affirmed by the Superior Court, denying his 2011 motion to modify the 2009 child-support order. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Merchant v. Merchant" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a dispute between a residential subdivision property owners' association and the owner of commercial property both in and adjacent to the subdivision over access to property over a subdivision roadway. It also involved the conduct of the property owners' association. Defendant, Sunne Village Development Property Owners Association (POA), appealed the trial court's judgment that it created a nuisance affecting the commercial landowner; the court's calculation of compensatory damages arising from the nuisance; and the court's award of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs, Post and Beam Equities Group, LLC, and Post and Beam of Mt. Snow, LLC (collectively "P&B"), cross-appealed, challenging the trial court's conclusion that its deeded easement over the subdivision's road did not extend to its patrons' use for access to its restaurants. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed with respect to the judgment for nuisance and the award of punitive damages and attorney's fees, but reversed the award of compensatory damages to P&B. With respect to the cross-appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment relating to interpretation of the deeded easement. View "Post & Beam Equity Group, LLC v. Sunne Village Development Property Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

For eight or nine months following the birth of their son, the parties involved in this dispute lived together in an apartment connected to the home of the child's maternal grandfather in Springfield. In the fall of 2012, mother asked father to leave the apartment, and father moved into his parents' home in Chester. In this parentage action, father appealed the superior court's decision denying, based on the absence of changed circumstances, his motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities with respect to the parties' son following mother's relocation with the child to the State of Georgia. Finding no reversible error after review of the superior court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Falanga v. Boylan" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were arguing over child support. Parents to a daughter born in 2006, the mother argued that the family court erred in calculating the amount of the father's income for purposes of determining his child support obligation. Specifically, she argued the court should have imputed income father earned from property sales made in 2008 and 2010 from a business in which he held an interest. The Supreme Court reviewed the family court record and concluded the court did not err in calculating the father's income. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the family court's determination. View "Patnode v. Urette" on Justia Law

Owner and developer, Stratton Corporation and Intrawest Stratton Development Corporation, sued a condominium construction project's general contractor Engelberth Construction, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party claim against subcontractor Evergreen Roofing Company. A jury found that Engelberth Construction breached its contract with developer and breached an express warranty, which proximately caused developer to sustain damages related to roof repairs. The jury also found that Evergreen Roofing breached its subcontract with Engelberth Construction, and that Evergreen Roofing was obligated to indemnify Engelberth Construction. Evergreen Roofing appealed, arguing that the court erred in denying a pretrial motion for summary judgment filed by Engelberth Construction on various issues, including the scope of the contract between developer and Engelberth Construction and whether proof of non-insurance or lack of availability of insurance coverage was a prerequisite to developer's recovery against Engelberth. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Evergreen Roofing failed to preserve its argument. View "Stratton Corp. v. Engleberth Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Father appealed the trial court's award of sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities to mother. He also appealed the court's calculation and division of marital assets, challenging the application of a hypothetical real-estate commission in awarding father a portion of the martial home's equity as well as the trial court's division of the parties' retirement assets. Mother cross-appealed the trial court's parent-child contact order on grounds that the order did not achieve its stated goal and was not in the best interests of the parties' child. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order except its application of the hypothetical real-estate commission in a scenario in which no sale is contemplated, which was reversed. View "MacCormack v. MacCormack" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a decision by the Town of Middlebury Development Review Board (DRB) to approve appellee Jolley Associates, LLC's application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add a car wash to an existing gas station and convenience store within the Town limits. Appellant MDY Taxes, Inc. operated an H&R Block tax franchise in property rented in a shopping center adjacent to the Jolley lot. Appellant Village Car Wash, Inc. operated a car wash located approximately one-quarter of a mile from the Jolley lot. Appellants did not participate in the DRB proceeding, but sought to challenge the approval of the PUD through an appeal to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court. The environmental court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that appellants did not have standing, to appeal the DRB decision because they had not participated in the proceedings before the DRB as required by statute, and because they did not meet any of the exceptions to that statutory requirement. On appeal, appellants argued that a procedural defect prevented them from appearing before the DRB, and that it would be manifestly unjust if they are not afforded party status to appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc., & Village Car Wash, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Charles (Hank) Madigan appealed his conviction on three counts of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child. The charges related to three incidents which the victim, A.R., described in her testimony. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) that the trial court erred in allowing two witnesses to testify to the victim's character and reputation for truthfulness; (2) that the trial court admitted impermissible hearsay; and (3) that the prosecution's closing argument was improper. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the admission of testimony to bolster A.R.'s truthfulness was admitted improperly; (2) the trial court indeed, admitted impermissible hearsay; and (3) the prosecution's closing argument was improper and not harmless. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Madigan" on Justia Law

Appellant Horizon Heights Condominium Association sought to recover from joint condominium owners Ronald and Joan Dusablon the monthly dues that accrued after the Dusablons redeemed their foreclosed-upon condominium. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether a condominium owners' association could collect the monthly assessments that accrued in between the end of the date range stated in an agreement that formed the basis of a foreclosure judgment as between those parties, and the date on which that judgment was entered. The Court held that the association could recover these debts because they were not covered by a prior agreement or its attendant foreclosure judgment. Owners who continue to live in their condominiums and reap the association's services may not use an old foreclosure decree as a shield to avoid paying subsequent monthly assessments. View "Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dusablon & Horizon Heights Cond. Ass'n." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from an indemnity dispute between two defendants in a suit arising after plaintiff Michael Hemond suffered a tragic electrocution injury while working on an electrical switch. Defendant Frontier Communications of America, Inc., who owned the electrical equipment on which the accident took place, claimed implied indemnity from Navigant Consulting Group, Inc., a contractor. Navigant cross-claimed for indemnification from Frontier based on express statements in the parties' contract. The court granted summary judgment to Navigant on both Frontier's claim for implied indemnification and Navigant's claim of express indemnification against Frontier. Frontier appealed, arguing the trial court erred in concluding that the undisputed facts demonstrated that Frontier failed to meet the requirements for implied indemnification and that a valid express indemnification agreement existed between the parties. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hemond v. Frontier Communications" on Justia Law