Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The single issue in this appeal was whether payments by employer 863 To Go, Inc. to its delivery drivers should have been excluded from the calculation of employer's contribution to Vermont's system of unemployment compensation. "In a process known to anyone who has ever ordered a pizza, the customer calls in his or her order. A bilateral contract based on an exchange of mutual promises is formed. The customer promises to pay for the meal either upon delivery or before. The price is set, except for any gratuity, as is the description of the meal. Employer promises to obtain the food and arrange for its delivery. . . . The delivery driver plays no discernible role in creating the contract of sale. The record contains no evidence that he or she can vary the terms of sale, either with respect to price or to product. The driver's only role is to deliver the food and to pick up the purchase price if it has not already been paid. He or she has not 'sold' anything. He or she has, obviously, 'delivered' dinner." Since the "selling" requirement of the exemption in section 1301(6)(C)(xxi) was not met, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Employment Security Board that employer was obligated to pay an unemployment compensation contribution to the Department of Labor with respect to its delivery drivers. View "863 To Go, Inc. v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Howell appealed a judgment in favor of plaintiff Kneebinding, Inc. on his counterclaims alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, defamation, trademark violation, and misappropriation of trade secrets in this commercial contract and employment dispute. Howell contended on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that: (1) a contractual release barred the counterclaims arising prior to the date of the release; and (2) the release was supported by sufficient consideration. In 2006, Howell formed Kneebinding, Inc. to develop a ski binding based on a new release mechanism that he had invented. John Springer-Miller provided major financing and received a controlling interest in the corporation. Pursuant to a series of agreements, Springer-Miller became the chairman of the board of directors and Howell was employed as president and chief executive officer. An employment agreement executed by the parties in November 2007 provided that Howell would be an at-will employee with an annual base and, in the event his employment was terminated "other than for Cause," Howell would receive severance payable in equal installments over a period of one year. Less than a year later, the company’s board of directors voted to terminate Howell’s employment without cause. Negotiations between the company and Howell over the terms of his departure resulted in a letter from Springer-Miller on behalf of the company to Howell confirming the terms of the severance arrangement. Pertinent to the appeal was an exhaustive list of claims which Howell agreed to release, "including, but not limited to," employment discrimination under federal and state law and tort and contract claims of every sort, subject to several exceptions, including Howell’s rights under the parties’ Voting Agreement and Investors’ Rights Agreement. In 2009, Kneebinding filed a lawsuit against Howell alleging that he had violated certain non-disparagement and non-compete provisions of their agreements, committed trademark violations and defamation, tortiously interfered with contracts between Kneebinding and its customers and distributors, and misappropriated trade secrets. Howell answered and counterclaimed, alleging counts for breach of contract, defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation, unfair competition, tortious interference with business relations, patent violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Kneebinding moved for summary judgment on Howell’s counterclaims, asserting that they were barred by the release set forth in the letter agreement. The trial court granted the motion with respect to all of the counterclaims that arose prior to the execution of the release on and denied the motion as to those claims that arose after the release. Howell asserted that, in granting summary judgment on the counterclaims, the trial court erred in finding a valid release because he never signed the separate release of claims set forth in Attachment B to the letter agreement. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Robert Foti sold most of his fuels business to defendant James Kurrle and agreed to sell gasoline to defendant through a retained wholesale distributorship. When the business relationship soured, plaintiff sued defendant for one month's nonpayment of gasoline and other claims. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), all stemming from the original purchase of plaintiff's business. Defendant appealed the trial court's judgments as a matter of law on the counterclaims in favor of plaintiff, specifically the CFA counterclaim, arguing that the court should not have considered plaintiff’s motion because plaintiff did not raise the argument that the CFA did not cover the transaction until after trial, and that the court erred in holding that the transaction was not "in commerce." Furthermore, defendant appealed the court’s ruling on the breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing counterclaims arising from the non-competition provision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court concluded, as the trial court did, that the CFA did not apply to this transaction as a matter of law. The Court agreed with defendant that the trial court should have sent the case to the jury on the contract claims. View "Foti Fuels, Inc. v. Kurrle Corporation" on Justia Law

At the heart of this case was a dispute between developer, Birchwood Land Company, Inc., and contractor, Ormond Bushey & Sons, Inc. over a construction contract.  The developer sued for breach of contract, claiming mainly that the contractor had removed excavated sand from the construction site without permission.  The contractor counterclaimed for amounts due under the contract. The court found that the contractor breached the contract and granted the developer damages for the lost sand. The unpaid balance owed on the contract was offset by the damages. On appeal, the contractor argued that the court erred in denying its request for interest penalties and attorney's fees as the substantially prevailing party. The developer argued that the court erred in limiting damages for the sand removal, denying its request for punitive damages, granting prejudgment interest on contractor's net recovery, and denying its claim for slander of title. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence in the record supported the trial court's judgment in this case and affirmed the outcome. View "Birchwood Land Company, Inc. v. Ormond Bushey & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

The parties in this case entered into a real estate agreement thirteen years ago. The trial court concluded that the agreement constituted a contract for deed and that the purchasers had therefore acquired an equitable interest in the property in question. The court initiated a foreclosure on that interest, even though it had not been pled. Plaintiffs, the purchasers as found by the superior court, David and Barbara Prue, appealed the foreclosure. Defendant, the seller as found by the court, Larry Royer, appealed the court’s conclusions that the contract was an enforceable contract for deed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s conclusion that the parties entered into a contract for deed and that it was enforceable, but reversed the foreclosure decree as premature. View "Prue v. Royer, Sr." on Justia Law

Rosann Maggio, widow and primary beneficiary of the estate of Daniel Maggio, appealed a decision of the superior court which held that Daniel Maggio did not own an interest in real property in Holland, Vermont at the time of his death. Ms. Maggio argued that the trial court erroneously admitted statements from her interrogatory answers in violation of the best evidence rule, the dead man's statutes, and the requirement in V.R.E. 602 that testimony be based on personal knowledge; that the court's conclusions that the property in question was partnership property and that Daniel Maggio ceded his interest in the partnership to his partner, Paul Silas, prior to Mr. Maggio's death were unsupported by the evidence; and that the trial court erred in declining to apply the statute of frauds to the transfer of Mr. Maggio's interest in the partnership. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the transaction at issue in this case involved Mr. Maggio's relinquishment of his interest in the partnership, which left Silas fully vested in all remaining partnership assets, including the Holland property. "The pivotal distinction is between a transaction that constitutes a conveyance of an interest in a partnership, which is personal property regardless of whether the partnership assets thereby conveyed include real property, and a transaction that is a conveyance of the real property itself. The Court concluded that Ms. Maggio's arguments had no merit, and affirmed the superior court. View "In re Estate of Maggio" on Justia Law

Taxpayer World Publications distributes a free weekly newspaper in central Vermont called The World. Once a month, the newspaper includes a coupon book, produced and printed by taxpayer, that features coupons for local businesses. The Commissioner of Taxes concluded that the coupon books are not "component parts" of the newspaper, and therefore the cost of printing the coupon books is "not exempt from sales and use tax." The superior court affirmed. World Publications appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed too. View "World Publications, Inc. v. Vermont Department of Taxes" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Doctors Eitan and Vered Sobel, owners of a medical office building in Rutland, appealed the superior court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, City of Rutland. Plaintiffs sued the City for damages, claiming the City Tax Assessor (the Assessor) was negligent in providing allegedly inaccurate property tax estimates on the proposed, but not yet built, office. Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin the City from enforcing the tax assessment on the office building ultimately constructed. On appeal, they argued that the court erred in concluding that their negligence claim was barred by municipal immunity and that they failed to establish equitable estoppel against the City. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the City Assessor was immune from suit, and that plaintiffs could no establish estoppel with the facts of this case. Finding no error with the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City, the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. View "Sobel v. City of Rutland" on Justia Law

Appellant Foti Fuels, Inc. (Foti), a fuel distributor, appealed a Civil Division’s judgment in favor of Evans Group, Inc. (Evans), also a fuel distributor. Evans cancelled its agreement to sell fuel to Foti for resale and delivery to a retail gasoline station, and sued for payment of an outstanding balance of $68,864. Foti claimed the unilateral termination of the agreement violated the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) which regulates fuel franchise agreements. The trial court determined that Foti was not a "franchisee" within the meaning of the PMPA and, therefore, not entitled to its contract termination protections. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Evans Group, Inc. v. Foti" on Justia Law

Defendant Poulin Auto Sales appealed a trial court judgment that awarded attorney's fees under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act (VCFA). Poulin argued that the court erred in holding it liable under the VCFA and refusing to reconsider evidence that a vehicle was sold "as is." In September 2006, Poulin purchased a 2001 Audi for $4800 at auction, where it received a clean document of title and an odometer disclosure form. Poulin brought the car to auction in January 2007 and sold it to Plaintiff Crawford Gregory. Plaintiff received a clean document of title, and Poulin certified that the odometer reading was correct at the time of sale. At resale, however, the odometer reading did not reflect the car’s actual mileage, the passenger side airbag was inoperable, and the title documents did not reflect the fact that the vehicle was previously salvaged and rebuilt. Plaintiff filed suit, and the trial court granted his motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for further findings on liability under the VCFA. On remand, both parties moved for summary judgment on the consumer fraud claim. After making further findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. In so doing, the court stated that it relied in part on the prior pleadings filed by the parties at the time of Plaintiff's original motion for summary judgment, filed in 2008, in addition to the parties' statements of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment and Poulin's new cross-motion for summary judgment filed after remand. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that certain proffered documents were not before the trial court at either the pre- or post-remand summary judgment stages because Poulin did not attach them to either its 2008 or 2010 pleadings. Only later, when Poulin filed a motion to reconsider, were the documents attached. The court's refusal to reconsider this evidence was not an abuse of discretion, "for it was not the court's mistake that Poulin sought to correct - the court properly noted that Poulin had moved for summary judgment and could have submitted additional documents with the pleadings." View "Gregory v. Poulin Auto Sales, Inc." on Justia Law