Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from a dispute over damage to a leased commercial space. The case was tried before a jury, which awarded plaintiff-landlord David Walsh, just under $11,000 in damages attributable to defendant-tenant Frank Cluba. Following the jury verdict, the trial court awarded Walsh over $44,000 in attorney's fees. Cluba appealed, arguing that the court erred by allowing Walsh to testify on the reasonableness of repair work done after Cluba vacated the property and by awarding Walsh an unreasonable amount of attorney's fees under the circumstances. Walsh cross-appealed, arguing that the court erred by dismissing his claims against defendant Good Stuff, Inc., the business that Cluba and his partner incorporated shortly after Cluba signed the initial lease of the subject property. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Walsh v. Cluba" on Justia Law

This issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the parties' respective rights and obligations arising from a contract for the sale of land from SKI, Ltd.'s predecessor-in-interest to Mountainside Properties, Inc. The contract included a "right of first offer" (ROFO) with respect to an adjacent parcel. Mountainside appealed a declaratory judgment where the trial court concluded that the terms of the ROFO provision constituted an unlawful restraint on alienation. SKI cross-appealed the trial court's judgment that an offer that it made in 2012 to Mountainside pursuant to the ROFO violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the agreement, and that it therefore was not free to sell the property to another buyer on the terms offered to Mountainside upon Mountainside's rejection of the offer. Both parties argued that the trial court erred in proposing an offer by SKI to Mountainside on alternative terms which the court concluded would satisfy the requirements of the ROFO while avoiding an unlawful restraint on alienation. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that SKI's offer did not satisfy the requirements of the ROFO such that Mountainside's rejection freed SKI to sell the property to someone else. Because the Court reached its conclusion on the basis of straightforward contract interpretation, it did not consider whether the 2012 offer ran afoul of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the ROFO did not constitute an improper restraint on alienation. View "Ski, Ltd. v. Mountainside Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Birchwood Land Company appealed a Superior Court decision denying Birchwood's motion for attachment and granting defendant Judith Krizan's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Birchwood's complaint alleged that Krizan was unjustly enriched by Birchwood's construction of an access road and other infrastructure to her property such that she was able to develop the property without contributing to the cost of the improvements. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and affirmed. View "Birchwood Land Company, Inc. v. Krizan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Paul Choiniere and P&D Consulting, Inc. sued defendants, attorney Anthony Marshall and his law firm, Harris Beach, PLLC, alleging that they made negligent and intentional misrepresentations while representing a client in a matter involving commercial loan guaranties. Choiniere argued that he relied upon the misrepresentations when deciding not to call a $1 million loan that he made in September 2003, and P&D Consulting argued that it relied upon the misrepresentations when deciding to loan an additional $1.3 million in June 2004. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision granting defendants summary judgment. In sum, the Court held that there were several material issues in dispute that preclude summary judgment, including the viability of the guaranty agreement after an April 28, 2004 letter, whether plaintiffs' reliance on the April 28 letter was justifiable, whether Marshall was authorized to send the letter, and whether there are any economic damages. View "Choiniere v. Marshall and Beach, PPLC" on Justia Law

The parties in this case met in 2002 or 2003 and had a romantic relationship. In August 2007, the pair bought a house in Orwell. Prior to the purchase, plaintiff had been renting an apartment within the house from the owners of the property, the Tricketts. After the sale, defendant moved in with plaintiff. The parties bought the house for $245,000: Defendant’s mother contributed $200,000, defendant paid about $4,300 in closing costs, and the Tricketts financed a $45,000 private mortgage to the parties. Defendant’s mother did not ask for a promissory note, and her contribution was a gift rather than a loan. In particular, the contribution was intended as a gift to defendant, not to plaintiff. Although both parties signed the promissory note to the Tricketts, plaintiff took responsibility for making those payments, and was supposed to pay the balloon payment on the mortgage in August of 2010. The property was titled to the parties as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Sometime after the closing, plaintiff signed an indemnification agreement that expressly acknowledged that defendant paid $200,000 plus the closing costs, that plaintiff was solely responsible for the $45,000 mortgage debt, and that plaintiff would indemnify defendant for any default on that debt. Plaintiff testified that she always believed that each party had a fifty percent interest in the property, while defendant testified that his understanding was that the parties had interests in the property commensurate their respective contributions. The trial court expressly rejected plaintiff’s testimony and concluded that both parties understood that their interests were defined by their respective contributions to the purchase price. The parties’ relationship ended, and defendant moved out of the house in 2009. In February, he stopped paying the expenses for the property and ignored plaintiff’s requests for assistance. Plaintiff has rented out a portion of the house since April 2010, collecting $700 per month. As of the trial, plaintiff had earned $27,300 from renting the house. She did not share any of this income with defendant. Plaintiff did not pay the balloon payment on the mortgage, and in 2010, the Tricketts filed a petition for foreclosure. In November 2011, plaintiff filed for bankruptcy to avoid losing the property. Plaintiff’s mother helped her to redeem the property by borrowing $143,000 against the equity in her own home. Plaintiff paid toward the mortgage on her mother’s house used to finance the redemption of the parties' house, $56,691 to the Trinketts, $12,031 for past-due property taxes, and $71,722 to pay off a home equity loan. In August 2011, in the face of an inevitable foreclosure sale, the court ordered plaintiff to sell the house. Plaintiff did not comply with the order, and the court found plaintiff in contempt on that basis. In a partition action, plaintiff sought to keep the house and buy out defendant’s interest. Defendant wanted the property awarded to him so that he could sell it and then disburse the amounts allocated by the court to plaintiff. Neither party sought to divide the property into two lots. The property was appraised at $240,000. The parties submitted the matter to the court. Plaintiff challenged the partition order reflecting the trial court’s conclusion that defendant had an 81.7% interest in the home and for applying various setoffs for contributions to the maintenance of the home after the parties purchased it. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the order. View "Currie v. Jané" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Helena Murphy appealed a superior court judgment in favor of defendant, Patriot Insurance Company, her homeowner’s insurer. The dispute between the parties stemmed from storm damage done to plaintiff's house in 2007, and the subsequent claims she made on her insurance policy. On appeal of the superior court's ruling in Patriot's favor, plaintiff argued: (1) Patriot was estopped from denying coverage for the removal and replacement of a chimney on her home; and (2) the trial court erred in dismissing claims for negligence and bad faith. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Murphy v. Patriot Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In 2007, plaintiffs Sylvia and Stanley Stroup sued defendants Peter Doran and Peter Doran Landscape Design, LLC for breach of contract, fraud, and consumer fraud after defendants failed to perform landscaping for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against defendants. Defendants failed to pay the judgment. Plaintiffs obtained a writ of execution, and the court approved plaintiffs’ motion for trustee process to attach funds owned by defendants and held by Brattleboro Savings and Loan Association (BSL). BSL disclosed to plaintiffs that it held a balance of $2,853.05 in a checking account titled in the name of one of the defendants. A few days later, the parties stipulated that BSL would release $750 to plaintiffs, and that BSL would then be discharged as a trustee and defendant’s account would be free of any lien or charge benefitting plaintiffs. Defendants further agreed to pay $3,500 to plaintiffs before January 31, 2008. BSL paid plaintiffs $750. Plaintiffs claim that defendants never paid the remainder of their debt. In 2013, plaintiffs served BSL with another trustee summons. BSL did not reply within thirty days, and on August 27 plaintiffs moved for default against BSL and entry of judgment against it as trustee for $24,155.12, the balance due under the judgment. The court ordered the clerk to schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, and directed that a copy of plaintiffs’ motion and the notice of hearing be served on BSL. On September 16, BSL filed a trustee disclosure indicating that it did not have any of defendants’ property in its possession. The court subsequently entered an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against BSL. The court stated that “[a]lthough Trustee failed to make a timely disclosure, its disclosure now made in response to Plaintiff[s’] motion for default shows that it holds no assets for the benefit of Defendant[s]. Default judgment under these circumstances would be inequitable.” Plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion for default because applicable Vermont law makes default mandatory when a trustee fails to serve a disclosure within thirty days. Plaintiffs did not contest the information contained in the trustee’s disclosure form or request an evidentiary hearing below. See V.R.C.P. 4.2(g) (stating that party who intends to contest information contained in trustee’s disclosure is entitled to evidentiary hearing upon written request). Nor do they contest the information on appeal. Their sole argument before this Court is that default was mandatory under 12 V.S.A. § 3062 and V.R.C.P. 4.2(f). Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Stroup v. Doran" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Progressive Casualty Insurance Company insured the vehicle involved in the accident at issue in this case. Given the number of victims, the policy’s liability coverage did not fully compensate at least one of the injured passengers. The parties disputed whether the injured passenger was therefore entitled to UIM benefits under Progressive’s policy. Progressive argued that coverage was barred by certain exclusions in its policy. The trial court found Progressive’s exclusions unenforceable as inconsistent with the definition of an "underinsured vehicle" set forth in 23 V.S.A. 941(f). Progressive appealed, arguing that its exclusions should be enforced, and that it should not have to provide both liability and UIM benefits to the injured passenger. The Supreme Court agreed with Progressive after its review of the case, and therefore, reversed the trial court’s decision. View "Progressive Casuality Insurance Co. v. MMG Insurnace Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on a contract dispute between the State of Vermont and Corizon Health, Inc., formerly known as Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS). The State appealed a declaratory judgment ruling that PHS was not contractually obligated to defend the State and its employees against certain claims brought by the estate of an inmate who died while in the custody of the Department of Corrections.  Upon review of the contract in question, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that PHS had a duty to defend.View "Vermont v. Prison Health Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the trial court's refusal to vacate a default judgment against it. This dispute arose from a 2009 contract between plaintiff LaFrance Architect, d/b/a Lake Architectural, and defendant Five Point Development South Burlington, LLC. Under the contract, plaintiff was to provide defendant architectural services for the construction of a Walgreens in South Burlington. Plaintiff invoiced defendant for services rendered, but two days after the invoice was payable and three days after the store opened, defendant sent plaintiff a letter indicating that defendant was terminating plaintiff's services due to an unspecified failure to fulfill the contract and unspecified "significant design errors that caused additional costs."  Plaintiff responded by filing notice of a mechanics lien. Defendant then secured a bond to discharge the mechanics lien, but failed to send a copy of the bond to plaintiff. Plaintiff later filed suit to perfect its mechanics lien by filing a verified complaint with a request for attachment and a claim for damages. Because the parties' contract contained mandatory mediation and arbitration provisions, plaintiff also filed a motion for stay, requesting that the court consider its motion for attachment but then stay proceedings pending mediation and arbitration as required by the contract. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly declined to consider the strength of defendant's proffered defenses to its motion to vacate the default judgment, but that defendant's Rule 60(b) motion did not establish a prima facie case to support a meritorious defense. Therefore the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "LaFrance Architect v. Five Point Development South Burlington, LLC" on Justia Law