Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

Plaintiff Janet Knutsen appealed a superior court decision to deny her motion for summary judgment and and for granting defendant Vermont Association of Realtors, Inc.'s (VAR) motion for summary judgment on her consumer fraud claim arising out of her purchase of a home in Moretown. Plaintiff argued that VAR's form purchase and sale agreement, which was used in her real estate purchase (to which VAR was not a party) violated the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) in that two provisions of the form were unfair and deceptive, and that she was therefore entitled to damages under section 2461(b) of the CFA. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly held that 'VAR's sole connection to this case was its drafting of the template clauses that [plaintiff] and her buyer's broker used for the purchase of the house, and that could not support a consumer fraud claim. View "Knutsen v. Dion" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Peter and Nicole Dernier appealed the dismissal of their action for: (1) a declaratory judgment that defendant U.S. Bank National Association could not enforce the mortgage and promissory note for the debt associated with plaintiffs' purchase of their house based on irregularities and fraud in the transfer of both instruments; (2) a declaration that U.S. Bank has violated Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by asserting its right to enforce the mortgage and note; and (3) attorney's fees and costs under the CFA. They also appealed the trial court's failure to enter a default judgment against defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). Plaintiffs fell behind on their mortgage, and brought suit against two parties: Mortgage Network, Inc. (MNI), which is in the chain of title for both the note and the mortgage, and MERS, which is in the chain of title for the mortgage as a "nominee" for MNI. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the mortgage was void, asserting that: (1) MERS, as a nominee, never had any beneficial interest in the mortgage; (2) MNI had assigned its interest in both instruments to others without notifying plaintiffs; and (3) no party with the right to foreclose the mortgage had recorded its interest. MNI responded that plaintiffs had named MNI as a party in error, because MNI did "not own the right to the mortgage in question." MERS did not respond. Around this time, plaintiffs received a letter in which U.S. Bank represented that it possessed the original promissory note and mortgage and that it had the right to institute foreclosure proceedings on the property. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed plaintiffs' case for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of plaintiffs' amended complaint for lack of standing, to the extent that these counts alleged irregularities in the transfer of the note and mortgage unconnected to the pooling and servicing agreement. The Court affirmed as to dismissal of Counts 3 and 4 of plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Dernier v. Mortgage Network, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michelle Straw appealed a superior court judgment that dismissed her case for breach of an implied employment contract against defendant Visiting Nurse Association and Hospice of Vermont and New Hampshire (VNA). She argued the jury instructions in her case were erroneous and prejudicial because they failed to instruct on the standard for "just cause" termination. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Straw v. Visiting Nurse Association and Hospice of VT/NH" on Justia Law

The Probate Court appointed Theodore Ballard's niece, Leala Bell, as Ballard's guardian. Bell signed a promissory note to a mortgage as a "borrower"; she did not expressly indicate that she was signing as Ballard's guardian or that her signature indicated only her "approval" of Ballard's action. The loan was secured by a mortgage on Ballard's real property. The mortgage deed granted and conveyed Ballard's property to CitiFinancial, including the power to sell the property. Ballard signed the mortgage deed but Bell did not. There was no showing that the probate court licensed the mortgage. CitiFinancial alleged that Ballard had failed to make the payments called for under the note and mortgage, and therefore breached these agreements. Ballard moved for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that he lacked the legal capacity to execute a mortgage deed and promissory note while he was under guardianship. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Ballard's argument relied on the notion that Bell participated in the transaction with CitiFinancial, subjected herself to personal liability as a cosigner of the note, signed the settlement statement as well as the promissory note, but did not actually approve Ballard's signing of the note. Although the mortgage deed purportedly executed by Ballard and the promissory note secured by that deed were executed as part of the same overall transaction, the two documents created distinct legal obligations. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in analyzing the note and mortgage as if they were one and the same, both subject to the requirement of probate court approval. Therefore the Court reversed the award of summary judgment to Ballard on CitiFinancial's claim on the promissory note and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings on that claim. View "CitiFinancial, Inc. v. Balch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Thomas Kellogg owned a house and land in Bethel.  In 1999, he entered into a rent-to-own agreement with William Oren whereby Oren would pay over time for the property, at which point ownership would be transferred to him. Beginning in 2000 and then from 2001 onwards, defendant Cindy Shushereba began to occupy the house with Oren in a romantic relationship. By August 2004, it was contemplated that defendant would co-own the property.  Plaintiff indicated that he wished to come to an agreement to sell the property to defendant and Oren. To that end, defendant liquidated her savings and paid plaintiff for a downpayment on the house.  Plaintiff credited Oren and defendant with the amount Oren had paid in rent.  These two contributions left roughly $98,721 to be paid to reach the purchase price.  The parties agreed orally that the balance would be paid monthly over fifteen years. No written purchase and sale agreement was ever prepared, but the parties intended that Oren and defendant would receive title immediately and give a mortgage secured by a promissory note for the installments. Plaintiff delivered a signed warranty deed to defendant, but defendant never signed the promissory note or the mortgage.  Because defendant could not pay the property transfer tax that would be due on recording, she never recorded the warranty deed.  Plaintiff testified that, at the time, he considered himself the mortgage holder only. Ultimately, the relationship between Oren and defendant dissolved, and, in May 2008, Oren moved out. A couple of months later, plaintiff and defendant became sexually involved.  During this time, plaintiff sought neither rent nor the purchase installments from defendant, and she made no payments. At some point in 2010, plaintiff began seeking rent from defendant, and she did make between two and four monthly rental payments of $650. Plaintiff paid the property taxes on the property throughout the time that defendant lived by herself in the house. Oren then sued plaintiff and defendant, seeking to be declared half-owner of the property along with defendant, from whom he sought a partition and accounting.  In September 2009, the superior court rejected Oren's claims. Defendant counterclaimed, contending that she owned the property or, in the alternative, that plaintiff had been unjustly enriched by defendant’s payments to him.  Prior to trial, the court dismissed as res judicata defendant’s claim that she owned the property, leaving the unjust-enrichment claim in her counterclaim. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff’s claims for back rent and property taxes. However, the trial court ruled in favor of defendant with regard to her unjust enrichment claims for the return of the downpayment on the purchase price and several of her alleged capital and repair contributions. Both parties appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the contract between plaintiff and defendant was a contract for deed; the trial court erred in concluding it was a landlord-tenant relationship. Because the agreement between plaintiff and defendant was a contract for deed, the amount of $833 per month that defendant had agreed to pay plaintiff went entirely toward the purchase price plus interest. When the periodic payments were complete, defendant would become the owner of the property, free and clear of any interest of plaintiff, without a further payment. There was not an agreement to pay rent; the $833 monthly payment was not part of a rental agreement between plaintiff and defendant. View "Kellogg v. Shushereba" on Justia Law