Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Town of Underhill appealed a trial court order that affirmed a decision of the County Road Commissioners requiring the Town to maintain a segment of Town Highway 26 (TH 26), a Class 4 highway. TH 26 has existed, in some form, for nearly 150 years. In 2001, the Town sought to reclassify a segment of TH 26 between Irish Settlement Road and Pleasant Valley Road as a legal trail, and the remainder of the roadway as a Class 4 highway. Following protracted litigation, these changes became effective in June 2010, and TH 26 became part of the Town’s six miles of Class 4 highways. Prior to the reclassification of TH 26, the Town performed periodic maintenance and repair work to both the roadway and the twenty-two culverts that were installed along and under TH 26 over the past thirty years. Although the ditches along TH 26 do not appear to have been maintained since 2010, the Town has continued to do some work, primarily the addition of base material to the roadway. Appellees David Demarest, Jeffrey Moulton, and Jonathan Fuller owned property on TH 26 in the Town of Underhill. Appellees Fuller and Demarest resided at their properties full time, while two additional residents along the road were part-time residents. In 2012, appellees filed a notice of insufficiency pursuant to 19 V.S.A. 971 requesting maintenance of TH 26, which had been largely deferred following the roadway reclassification. The Town denied appellees’ allegations, asserting that TH 26 was being maintained to the extent required by the necessity of the Town, the public good, and the convenience of the inhabitants of the Town. Appellees then brought an action for the appointment of County Road Commissioners pursuant to 19 V.S.A. 971 et seq. to compel the Town to undertake repairs of TH 26. Specifically, appellees sought repairs and maintenance to drainage, culverts, and the road surface, so as to make it reasonably safe and accessible for appellees’ use as residents of the Town. The Town contended on appeal that the trial court misconstrued and incorrectly applied the statutory provisions for the maintenance of Class 4 roads and erroneously established its own maintenance standard. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Town and reversed. View "Demarest v. Town of Underhill" on Justia Law

Defendants-counterclaimants Jeanmarie Leonard and Carol Sayour appealed the grant of summary judgment on their counterclaims in favor of plaintiff Jennifer Weinstein and third-party defendants, Lloyd Weinstein, plaintiff’s husband, and his law firm, The Weinstein Group, P.C. This case started in an application for a permit to construct a barn made by defendants in May 2012. Defendants received a zoning permit from Manchester’s zoning administrator allowing them to construct a barn on Lot #10. Pursuant to the Declaration for Rocking Stone Farm, defendants received a waiver from the Homeowner’s Association. Plaintiff appealed the permit to the Manchester Development Review Board (the “DRB”). The DRB affirmed the grant of the permit. Defendant Leonard and her husband were walking along Lot #10 with a landscape contractor when plaintiff began yelling at them from her upstairs window. Plaintiff then left her home and entered Lot #10, accompanied by a “very large dog.” Despite being asked to leave, she physically confronted the Leonards, who eventually left the lot. Two days later, plaintiff filed an appeal of the DRB’s decision to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court. Plaintiff, a trained attorney, initially represented herself, but Mr. Weinstein and his law firm, The Weinstein Group, P.C., entered an appearance as counsel for her. Both the Association and counsel for defendants advised plaintiff by letter that her opposition to the barn permit constituted a violation of the Non-Interference Clause of the Declaration, which provided that each owner of a lot in Rocking Stone Farm agreed “not [to] take any action to contest or interfere with any development in the Community so long as such development is consistent with the Land Use Approvals.” The Environmental Division rendered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff also filed suit against defendants in superior court with a ten-count complaint, alleging, among other things, that the Declaration had been breached by defendants’ construction of the barn. Defendants filed counterclaims against plaintiff for trespass, civil assault, breach of contract, tortious invasion of privacy, as well as abuse of process and third-party claims against Mr. Weinstein and his law firm for abuse of process and breach of contract. Finding no reason to disturb the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as it did in plaintiff’s favor, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Weinstein v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Defendant-landlords appealed a jury verdict and post-judgment order involving warranty-of-habitability and consumer-protection claims. Landlords William and Susan O’Brien purchased the subject property in the 1980s, which included a two-story house and brick building (referred to as the creamery) with a common wall to the rear of the house. In December 2002, following foreclosure proceedings on their home, plaintiff-tenants, Timothy and Penny Terry, along with their two children, accepted landlords’ offer to occupy the house rent-free for a short period. After their first year in the house, tenants began paying rent. There was no written rental agreement, but from at least December 2005, six years before tenants filed this lawsuit, there was an oral agreement to pay monthly rent in an amount that varied over the years. Eventually, the parties’ relationship deteriorated. In March 2005, Burlington Code Enforcement (BCE) inspected the house and cited landlords for multiple problems that required repair. A follow-up inspection in January 2006 confirmed that most of the repairs had been completed. BCE inspected the property again later in 2006 and found additional items that required repair, most of which were completed soon thereafter. In 2008, BCE performed several more inspections and issued notices of violations, many of which concerned the creamery. In May 2008, Vermont Gas inspected the house’s furnace and determined that it needed to be repaired or replaced because it was in extremely poor condition. In November 2008, landlords had space heater installed on the first floor of the house, but it was insufficient to heat the second floor. As a result, tenants began using space heaters on the second floor at night. In late 2008, a fire broke out in the attic of the house above one of the bedrooms. The state fire investigator determined that the fire had begun at an electrical splice located in the attic. The investigator also noted tenants’ use of multiple extension cords and supplemental wiring due to the insufficient number of functioning outlets. The investigator concluded that the fire was caused by a combination of the load on the older electrical system, moisture from the cellulose insulation, and the inability of the knob-and-tube wiring to shed heat due to it being buried in the insulation. In 2011, the Terrys filed suit against landlords, alleging: (1) breach of the oral rental agreement; (2) breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment (with respect to public health hazards); (4) violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA); (5) negligence; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Tenants sought, among other things, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees. Landlords counterclaimed for unpaid rent. Landlords’ arguments on appeal of the jury verdict were: (1) the trial court’s jury instructions misled the jury on tenants’ habitability and CPA claims, resulting in prejudice to landlords; (2) the court erred by vacating the jury’s unpaid-rent award in its post-judgment order; and (3) the court abused its discretion by awarding tenants attorney’s fees on their habitability and CPA claims and by denying landlords’ attorney’s fees based on tenants’ contributory negligence. The Supreme Court found that the trial court’s CPA instruction was overly broad and prejudicial to the landlords, and therefore the verdict was vacated with respect to the CPA claim. Absent their habitability claim, there was no basis for tenants to withhold rent. Therefore, the jury’s verdict regarding unpaid rent must stand. The Court also vacated the award of attorney fees, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Terry v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a superior court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant Caroline Marini on plaintiff EverBank’s complaint for foreclosure on a mortgage that Caroline signed in 2009 together with her co-defendant and then-husband Gary Marini. In ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, following a hearing, the trial court concluded that Caroline was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on EverBank’s foreclosure complaint because the undisputed material facts established that Caroline signed the mortgage under the threat of physical violence from Gary and thus the mortgage was void as to her. The trial court also concluded that regardless of whether the mortgage was void as to Caroline, EverBank was not a bona fide purchaser. EverBank subsequently moved to alter or amend the judgment on the ground that the grant of summary judgment as to Caroline unjustly enriched her. The trial court denied the motion, explaining that EverBank had not raised the issue of unjust enrichment in response to Caroline’s cross-motion for summary judgment. EverBank appealed both decisions. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the decision granting summary judgment in favor of Caroline on the issue of whether the mortgage was void, and directed the trial court to enter judgment for EverBank on that issue. The Court remanded for trial the issues of whether the mortgage was voidable and, if so, whether it was enforceable because it was ratified by Caroline, but affirmed the trial court’s decision that the bona fide purchaser doctrine was not available to EverBank. View "Everbank v. Marini" on Justia Law

Two disputes were presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review in this opinion. One dispute stemmed from a landowner’s replacement of his boathouse and construction of retaining walls that encroached onto his neighbors’ property. This dispute included claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages on account of the landowner’s alleged trespass. The neighbors challenged the trial court’s conclusions that the landowner was entitled to build the encroaching structure by virtue of a deeded easement and that they could not prevail in a claim for trespass on account of consent or estoppel. The second dispute (flowing from and intertwined with the first dispute) involved acts of vandalism to the disputed boathouse by the occupant of the neighbors’ property. The occupant appealed the judgment against him, and the landowner cross-appealed, raising a host of issues in connection with that judgment. After review of the particular facts entered into the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s construction of the deeded easement was erroneous, and the court improperly addressed the other issues in derogation of the neighbors’ request for a jury trial. The trial court was reversed with respect to the first dispute. Finding no error with regard to the second, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "LeBlanc v. Snelgrove" on Justia Law

Equinox on the Battenkill Management Association, Inc., appealed a superior court's grant of summary-judgment denying insurance coverage. The appeal arose from a declaratory judgment action against management association’s insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Inc., to determine coverage under a commercial general liability policy for damage to cantilevered balconies on condominium units it managed in Manchester. The issue this case presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review centered on whether "Gage v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Co,." (169 A.2d 29 (1961)) was still good law with regards to the meaning of "collapse" and whether "Gage" controlled the result here. After review, the Court concluded that the policy language in this dispute was broader than the language in Gage and that therefore Gage did not control. The Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for that court to resolve disputed questions of fact and interpret the applicable policy language. View "Equinox on the Battenkill Management Assn., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Board of Directors of the Arapaho Owners Association ("BOD," appellant) petitioned for a declaratory judgment seeking to reform the condominium's declaration to reflect the actual number of condominium units built and to allocate ownership interests among the units. Fifty-four units were actually built: five of the planned units each were subdivided into two "split" units, and one planned townhouse unit was never built. The master schedule of units (known as "Schedule D,") was never amended to reflect the number of units built. Sometime around 2008, issues were raised to the BOD concerning a disparity in assessments of common expenses, the claim being that owners of similar units were not paying an appropriate share. In addition, there existed potential questions concerning marketability of title due to the subdivision of certain units and the inclusion in the Declaration of the planned unit that was never built. The BOD, on behalf of the Association, brought an action in the superior court seeking to reform the Declaration to reflect the units actually built and to restate each unit's ownership share in the common areas according to the new formula that allegedly was adopted in a second amendment. The BOD in its complaint also sought a declaratory judgment to clear title to the existing units. Several owners of the split units (appellees) opposed the request for reformation, and also filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the second amendment failed because it, like the first, required unanimous approval under the Vermont Condominium Ownership Act (VCOA) section 1306(b). Appellees in their counterclaim also sought an injunction and money damages, claiming their assessments had been illegally increased by the new formula. The BOD filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the reformation issue, and appellees filed a cross motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling as a matter of law that the second amendment did not pass. The trial court denied the BOD's motion for summary judgment, and granted appellees' motion for attorney fees and costs. The questions on appeal before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether a unanimous decision of unit owners is required to amend the formula for assessing common expenses; (2) what equitable powers of reformation are available to cure a defect in a condominium declaration; and (3) what amount of attorney's fees, if any, was appropriate. After review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) a unanimous decision of unit owners was required to change the assessment formula; (2) the fact that the newly created ownership interest resulting from the distribution of Unit 23F's interest might not match the percentages the developer assigned to the six half units from the original plans did not make the reassignment inequitable or improper. The trial court's reformation did not change the percentages reflected in the 1979 Schedule D that the original developer had allocated to the existing units; and (3) the amount of fees the trial court awarded to appellees was not an abuse of discretion. View "Arapaho Owners Association, Inc. v. Alpert" on Justia Law

This was a case of protracted litigation between neighbors over a maple tree. The maple tree in question was about sixty-five years old and stood about sixty-five feet tall. The trunk or stem of the tree was located entirely on Bruce and Janet Alvarez's property, approximately two feet from the property line. Although the superior court considered the tree to "effectively" be on the property line, the parties agreed that the property line did not pass through the trunk of the tree, but laid to the south of the tree trunk. When the Alvarezes bought their property approximately twenty-five years ago, the tree was about one foot in diameter at the base. Approximately half of the branches and roots from the tree now cross the property boundary and encroach onto the lot belonging to Claudia Berger and Sheldon Katz. Some roots extended under the existing deck on the Berger/Katz home. For several years Berger and Katz sought to expand their home by constructing a two-story addition on the rear which would occupy roughly the same existing footprint as the house and deck at present. Berger and Katz received the necessary permits for construction of the addition. The plans for the construction of the addition to the Berger/Katz residence necessitated cutting the roots and branches that are encroaching onto their property. Efforts to amicably resolve the problem of the maple tree in light of the planned Berger/Katz addition were unsuccessful. In 2013, when Berger and Katz considered taking unilateral action to trim the tree's roots and branches, the Alvarezes filed for and received a temporary injunction, and later a permanent one. The superior court found it more likely than not that removal of 50% of the tree's roots and branches as contemplated would result in the premature death of the tree, perhaps within five years and probably within ten from the time of cutting. The final injunction barred the trimming of more than 25% of the roots and branches of the tree. The trial court granted the temporary injunction, employing what it dubbed as the "urban-tree rule." Under the "urban-tree rule," as described by the trial court, trimming the roots or branches of an encroaching tree may be proscribed if the trimming will destroy the tree. Although the judge hearing the permanent injunction questioned the validity of the "urban-tree rule," he felt it improper to apply a different legal analysis, relying upon it as the "law of the case." Berger and Katz argued on appeal of the superior court error that the court erred in granting an injunction because the common law allowed for an absolute right of a landowner to trim intruding branches and roots regardless of the impact on the offending tree; because there was no showing that the cutting would cause irreparable harm sufficient to support an injunction; and because injunctive relief resulted in a taking of their property without compensation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Vermont's long-standing right of a property owner to trim branches and roots from an encroaching tree without regard to the impact that such trimming may have on the health of the tree, and vacated the injunction on that basis. As such, the Court did not reach appellants' other arguments. View "Alvarez v. Katz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Heidi and James Glassford appealed a superior court decision denying their motion for summary judgment and granting it to defendant Dufresne & Associates, P.C. on plaintiffs' claims of negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Plaintiffs were homeowners who purchased their home direct from the builder, D&L Homes by Design, LLC (D&L). D&L hired defendant to certify that the on-site mound sewage disposal system constructed for the home satisfied state permitting requirements. On April 19, 2005, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issued a Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit for construction of the sewage disposal system on the property, subject to receiving a certification pursuant to 10 V.S.A 1973(e). On October 20, 2005, defendant's employee sent the certification required by the statute. On December 20, 2005, plaintiffs signed a purchase-and-sale agreement to purchase the home from D&L. Although the seller represented that the home and property had received all the necessary permits, plaintiffs never saw the certificate or the letter from the Agency stating that the certification requirement was satisfied. Sometime thereafter, plaintiffs hired an attorney in connection with the closing. On January 13, just prior, plaintiffs' attorney prepared a certificate of title that noted the wastewater and water supply permit. In February 2006, the sewage disposal system failed. In November 2008, plaintiffs hired defendant to investigate the system's failure because they knew defendant had inspected the system prior to their purchase. Defendant prepared a report stating that he had "completed the original" inspection in 2005 and found the system had been installed according to the permitted design. Plaintiffs received other opinions about the disposal system's failure both before and after hiring defendant to inspect the system. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in superior court alleging pecuniary losses from defendant's failure to properly inspect the sewage disposal system and subsequent misrepresentation about the construction of the system in the certification to the Agency. Upon review of the superior court decision, the Supreme Court found that the completion and filing of defendant's certificate was a prerequisite to D&L's ability to sell the home, the certificate was unrelated to the sale. The law required that it be sent only to the government agency that issued the permit. Furthermore, there was no allegation that D&L used the certificate as part of its sales pitch, and no allegation that defendant had any part in the sales. The standard for CPA liability required that a person be directly involved in the transaction that gave rise to the claimed liability. That standard was not met here. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Glassford v. Dufresne & Associates, P.C." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a dispute between a residential subdivision property owners' association and the owner of commercial property both in and adjacent to the subdivision over access to property over a subdivision roadway. It also involved the conduct of the property owners' association. Defendant, Sunne Village Development Property Owners Association (POA), appealed the trial court's judgment that it created a nuisance affecting the commercial landowner; the court's calculation of compensatory damages arising from the nuisance; and the court's award of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs, Post and Beam Equities Group, LLC, and Post and Beam of Mt. Snow, LLC (collectively "P&B"), cross-appealed, challenging the trial court's conclusion that its deeded easement over the subdivision's road did not extend to its patrons' use for access to its restaurants. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed with respect to the judgment for nuisance and the award of punitive damages and attorney's fees, but reversed the award of compensatory damages to P&B. With respect to the cross-appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment relating to interpretation of the deeded easement. View "Post & Beam Equity Group, LLC v. Sunne Village Development Property Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law