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

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. appealed trial court decisions denying its cross-claims for indemnity against three codefendants, Stantec Consulting, Inc., Turner Electric Corporation, and Graybar Electric Company. Frontier argued on appeal that it was entitled to implied indemnification from all three codefendants and express indemnity from Graybar, and the court erred in granting summary judgment because there are disputed questions of fact. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hemond v. Frontier Communications" on Justia Law

Respondent T.S.S. appealed a Superior Court decision granting the commissioner of the Department of Mental Health's application for a continued order of non-hospitalization (ONH) compelling T.S.S. to continue undergoing mental-health treatment. T.S.S. argued that the superior court erred in interpreting 18 V.S.A. 7101(16) and applying it to the evidence. T.S.S. suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. T.S.S. "has demonstrated a clear pattern that for a short period of time, despite denying that he has a mental illness, he, on orders of non-hospitalization, will take medications and improve significantly. But when he is off the order of non-hospitalization, he quickly goes off medications and deteriorates." Over the fifteen-year history testified to at the hearing, there was no evidence that T.S.S. exhibited assaultive behavior or posed a danger to others. There was evidence, however, that at times T.S.S. posed a danger to himself. In June 2013, the commissioner filed an application for continued treatment. T.S.S. did not contest the application and stipulated to entry of the order. On May 27, 2014, the superior court granted the commissioner's application. T.S.S. appealed. Upon review of the Superior Court's interpretation of 7101(6), the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court applied the wrong legal standard to the evidence, and that the evidence and findings did not support a continued ONH in this case. View "In re T.S.S." on Justia Law