Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Testator Elaine A. Holbrook died on February 3, 2013. She was survived by six children, including appellant-executors David and Cheryl Holbrook, appellee Amy Holbrook, and seven grandchildren, including appellant-grandson Charles Holbrook III. Testator did not have a surviving spouse. Testator signed a three-page handwritten document entitled "My Last Will & Testament." The will was in the form of a letter and was addressed "To all my children." The main source of contention between testator’s children reads: "In the event that I don’t make it through surgery on Thurs the 23rd of Jan. ’03, I wish to bequeath you all of the property and personal belongings divided equally to the six of you & to the seven grandchildren." Testator did, in fact, survive the surgery in January 2003 and lived for ten more years before her death in 2013. In April 2013, appellee Amy Holbrook filed a motion with the probate court seeking clarification of the will. Appellant-executors responded with two motions questioning whether the will was properly allowed, raising issues concerning the will’s execution, ambiguity in its devise, notice to the grandchildren, and whether the will was “conditional” and therefore invalid. The question presented in this will contest was whether the trial court correctly determined on summary judgment that the testator intended her last will and testament which she executed on the eve of surgery to be absolute rather than contingent on her surviving the surgery. The Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment was premature in this case because material factual issues remained in dispute concerning the testator’s intent, and therefore reversed. View "In re Appeal of the Estate of Elaine A. Holbrook" on Justia Law

Plaintiff in this wrongful-death action appealed a trial court judgment dismissing her complaint as untimely. Plaintiff contended the trial court erred in: (1) denying her motion to amend the complaint to include a certificate of merit; (2) declining to treat the motion to amend as a petition to extend the statute of limitations; and (3) dismissing a claim for personal injuries incurred during the decedent’s lifetime. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McClellan v. Haddock" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review was found in a series of e-mails exchanged between two business partners who jointly owned a document shredding company, and whether those e-mails (read together) constituted an enforceable contract to sell one partner's interest in the company to the other partner. Defendant-seller appealed the trial court's determination that the partners had an enforceable contract and that seller was obligated to negotiate the remaining terms of the deal in good faith. He argued that there were too many open terms to produce an enforceable contract and that the partners had no intent to be bound to a contract by their e-mails. Plaintiff-buyer cross-appealed, arguing that the e-mails demonstrated an intent to be bound, and that the Supreme Court should enforce the contract. The Supreme Court rejected the buyer's argument that the parties had entered into a fully-completed contract, and agreed with the seller that there was no enforceable contract at all. The Court reversed the trial court which held to the contrary, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the seller. View "Miller v. Flegenheimer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Solomon appealed the dismissal, without consideration of the merits, of her petition for dissolution of a nonresident civil union. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a civil union in 2001 in Brattleboro, Vermont, but both resided in Wake County, North Carolina. The parties were separated by May 2014. The parties had no children. In 2015, they decided to dissolve their civil union and filed an uncontested complaint in Vermont, accompanied by a final stipulation as required by 15 V.S.A. 1206(b). The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the parties failed to produce evidence that they attempted to obtain a dissolution of the civil union in North Carolina. The court expressed concern that if Vermont courts “continue[d] to accept these filings and allow courts in other states to ignore precedent [set by Obergefell v. Hodges, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2608 (2015)], the situation [would] never be resolved.” Because civil marriage and civil unions remained legally distinct entities in Vermont and because "Obergefell" mandated that states recognize only same-sex marriage, uncertainty remained as to whether Obergefell required other states to recognize and dissolve civil unions established in Vermont. The parties here followed the section 1206(b) mandates. Plaintiff contended that the provided affidavit satisfied the “acknowledgment” required by § 1206(b), and thus the court erred when it refused to consider the issue and held that North Carolina was the proper venue for all filings and appeals. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff, and reversed and remanded the trial court's dismissal. View "Solomon v. Guidry" on Justia Law

Father filed a parentage action on March 19, 2015. On April 8, 2015, mother filed a stipulation of parentage and a motion that she be granted sole parental rights and responsibilities for the children and that father be denied any right to parent-child contact. Father appealed a Family Division order that awarded mother sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities but did not award father any parent-child contact at the time. The order contained a provision permitting father to file a motion for parent-child contact, even without any change in circumstances, within forty-five days after the pending criminal charges against him had been resolved. On appeal, father argued that: (1) the court effectively terminated his parental rights without finding by clear and convincing evidence that doing so was in the best interests of the children; and (2) that the court erred in creating a prerequisite to the resumption of contact (that is, the resolution of the criminal charges) beyond his control. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Groves v. Green" on Justia Law

In involuntarily hospitalized patient diagnosed with schizophrenia appealed a trial court’s order allowing for his involuntary medication. Patient argued that the court erred by: (1) incorrectly applying the competency standard under 18 V.S.A. 7625; and (2) failing to address whether a previously prepared document reflecting his desire not to be given psychiatric medication was a “competently expressed written . . . preference[] regarding medication” under 18 V.S.A. 7627(b). After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s findings supported its conclusion under section 7625, but agreed that the trial court did not squarely address patient’s argument under section 7627 in its findings. Accordingly, the Court reversed on that issue and remanded for the trial court to issue findings addressing the applicability of section 7627(b). View "In re I.G." on Justia Law

The lender Cenlar FSB appealed a judgment in favor of the borrowers Laurie and Joseph Malenfant, Jr. in the lender’s second action for a judgment on the note and foreclosure, after the first was dismissed with prejudice. The lender argued that the first dismissal could not be interpreted as vacating the judgment on the note and for foreclosure that the trial court had previously issued in that case. Alternatively, the lender contended that its notice of default in the initial foreclosure action was sufficient to satisfy its notice obligation in connection with its second foreclosure action. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the first action on the promissory note and complaint for foreclosure did effectively vacate that court’s prior judgment for lender on the note and for foreclosure. Furthermore, the lender was not, on this record, entitled to pursue a second action because it had not taken any steps to reinstate borrower’s monthly payment obligations after lender had accelerated the note. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Cenlar FSB v. Malenfant, Jr." on Justia Law

This case came before the Vermont Supreme Court following the Environmental Division's decision on remand that a rock-crushing operation by North East Materials Group, LLC, (NEMG) was exempt from Act 250 as a preexisting development. The Environmental Division reached the same conclusion in its first decision, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the court used the wrong legal standard in deciding that the rock-crushing operation did not constitute a cognizable physical change to the preexisting development and that one of the main factual findings in support of the decision was clearly erroneous. Appellants, a group on thirteen neighbors to the operation, appealed, arguing that the Environmental Division erred in applying the Supreme Court's instructions on remand. After review a second time, the Supreme Court concluded that, even assuming that crushing operations were part of the preexisting quarrying development, findings on the location and volume of the crushing operations were too limited to support a conclusion that the present operations did not constitute a cognizable change to the existing development. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re North East Materials Group LLC Act 250 JO #5-21" on Justia Law

May 7, 2015 was the second day of Kenneth and Melissa Coons' divorce hearing. Near the end of the hearing, the trial court called a brief recess and asked counsel to meet in chambers. According to the trial court, during the meeting, it told the parties that “it would not and could not distribute [husband’s] military retirement because he had not yet served the requisite number of years to vest in the system. In short, there was not yet anything to distribute because [husband] had no entitlement to the benefit.” The trial court indicated that the benefits could be distributed only once they vested; because husband was ten months shy of a full twenty years of service as of the final hearing date, there was nothing to distribute. Following this conference in chambers, the parties entered into an stipulation resolving all outstanding issues. With respect to property division, wife agreed to accept a lump-sum payment of $15,000 and waived any claims to husband’s expected but not-yet-vested military retirement benefit. Wife affirmed on the record her satisfaction with the stipulation, and the trial court incorporated the stipulation into the final divorce decree. The court signed the final order the next day. Wife sought to set aside the stipulated final order for divorce on the ground that she entered into the agreement in reliance on that in-chambers “weather report” in which the trial judge misstated the applicable law. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in declining to set aside the stipulation, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coons v. Coons" on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute were the parents of a daughter, born in August 2004. The parties were living in Vermont and obtained a final parentage order in December 2012: Mother was awarded sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities; father was awarded significant parent-child contact (PCC). In October 2013, the court granted father’s motion to enforce his parent-child contact. The court warned mother that if she withheld or denied father’s right to contact in the future, it would seriously consider modifying parental rights and responsibilities. The court was persuaded that mother had no ability or disposition to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing contact with father, and that it was in the child’s best interests to have frequent and continuing contact with him. In August 2014, mother and daughter moved to Virginia. Father remained in Vermont. By agreement, father was to be provided with PCC during Christmas 2014 and during the early spring and summer of 2015. The Christmas visitation did not occur. In April 2015, father moved to enforce the PCC order. Father asserted that he had been unable to schedule a spring visit because mother refused to tell him where the child lived and which school she attended. In 2015, father filed emergency motions for sanctions and for enforcement, indicating that mother was not cooperating with father's requests. Shortly before father’s second filing, mother asked the court to relinquish jurisdiction over this case to Virginia courts. Mother argued that she and the child no longer had a significant connection to Vermont and that the “center of gravity regarding the child’s care, protection, schooling and personal relationships center fully in Virginia.” Mother appealed the trial court’s imposition of sanctions against her and its denial of her request that Vermont relinquish jurisdiction over this case to Virginia. She argued that the evidence did not support the imposition of sanctions and that the court erred in evaluating her jurisdictional request. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ward v. LaRue" on Justia Law