Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Owner and developer, Stratton Corporation and Intrawest Stratton Development Corporation, sued a condominium construction project's general contractor Engelberth Construction, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party claim against subcontractor Evergreen Roofing Company. A jury found that Engelberth Construction breached its contract with developer and breached an express warranty, which proximately caused developer to sustain damages related to roof repairs. The jury also found that Evergreen Roofing breached its subcontract with Engelberth Construction, and that Evergreen Roofing was obligated to indemnify Engelberth Construction. Evergreen Roofing appealed, arguing that the court erred in denying a pretrial motion for summary judgment filed by Engelberth Construction on various issues, including the scope of the contract between developer and Engelberth Construction and whether proof of non-insurance or lack of availability of insurance coverage was a prerequisite to developer's recovery against Engelberth. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Evergreen Roofing failed to preserve its argument. View "Stratton Corp. v. Engleberth Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a decision by the Town of Middlebury Development Review Board (DRB) to approve appellee Jolley Associates, LLC's application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add a car wash to an existing gas station and convenience store within the Town limits. Appellant MDY Taxes, Inc. operated an H&R Block tax franchise in property rented in a shopping center adjacent to the Jolley lot. Appellant Village Car Wash, Inc. operated a car wash located approximately one-quarter of a mile from the Jolley lot. Appellants did not participate in the DRB proceeding, but sought to challenge the approval of the PUD through an appeal to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court. The environmental court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that appellants did not have standing, to appeal the DRB decision because they had not participated in the proceedings before the DRB as required by statute, and because they did not meet any of the exceptions to that statutory requirement. On appeal, appellants argued that a procedural defect prevented them from appearing before the DRB, and that it would be manifestly unjust if they are not afforded party status to appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc., & Village Car Wash, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Horizon Heights Condominium Association sought to recover from joint condominium owners Ronald and Joan Dusablon the monthly dues that accrued after the Dusablons redeemed their foreclosed-upon condominium. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether a condominium owners' association could collect the monthly assessments that accrued in between the end of the date range stated in an agreement that formed the basis of a foreclosure judgment as between those parties, and the date on which that judgment was entered. The Court held that the association could recover these debts because they were not covered by a prior agreement or its attendant foreclosure judgment. Owners who continue to live in their condominiums and reap the association's services may not use an old foreclosure decree as a shield to avoid paying subsequent monthly assessments. View "Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dusablon & Horizon Heights Cond. Ass'n." on Justia Law

Tenant was the successor lessee to a thirty-year lease on a commercial property in Brattleboro. The lease was executed in 1987. The lease established a basic annual rent of $26,500 in paragraph 8, and then set forth how the rent would increase in subsequent years. Pursuant to the rent-increase provision, each year landlords calculated the annual rent increase and sent a notice to tenant. The increase was calculated as the percentage change in the CPI from the previous year to the current year multiplied by the previous year's rent. This increase was then added to the prior year's rent to arrive at the new annual rent. In March 2007, tenant assumed the lease. From 2008 to 2012, landlords sent rent-increase notices and tenant paid rent annually adjusted for increases, calculated according to this method, without objection. In 2013, landlords sent the annual rent increase notice to tenants. The notice reflected the new 2013 rent as $54,060. Tenant objected to the amount of rent and the calculation method for rental increases. The parties were unable to resolve their dispute, and tenant filed an action seeking both a declaration that its interpretation of the lease language was correct and damages for overpaid rent. Tenant appealed the court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant landlords on the parties' dispute concerning a rental-increase provision of the lease. Tenant argued on appeal that the court erred in using extrinsic evidence to interpret a portion of the lease tenant believed was unambiguous, and in reaching an inequitable result. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "B&C Management Vermont, Inc. v. John, Ringey & Beck" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant realtor who represented the seller in the sale of an inn. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant's alleged misrepresentation and omission were immaterial as a matter of law. Defendant Barbara Walowit Realty, Inc. was the listing agent for the inn. The prior-prospective purchaser claims she told defendant during their conversation that she had witnessed flooding in the parking lot and had learned of "major problems with the roof and that there was a possibility of collapse." Based on statements made by defendant, and a report prepared by the seller with regard to the condition of the inn, plainitffs entered into a purchase-and-sale agreement with the seller in December 2007. The agreement contained an inspection contingency. At the recommendation of defendant, plaintiffs then hired engineers to perform a pre-purchase structural inspection of the property, and received an inspection report in late January 2008. The sale closed in May 2008. In September, after encountering various problems relating to the condition of the inn, plaintiffs sued defendant for negligence and consumer fraud for defendant's alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the condition of the inn. Plaintiffs and defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On the claim of negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant. As to the claim of consumer fraud, the court considered, among other things, defendant's alleged failure to disclose the contents of her conversation with the prior-prospective purchaser and to disclose the estimate of roof repair costs that was in her files. The court concluded that the statements from the prior-prospective purchaser were "simply too vague and foundationless to give rise to knowledge of specific material facts that [defendant] would have a duty to disclose" under the Consumer Fraud Act. The court further concluded that defendant's failure to disclose the roof-repair estimate was not a material omission because plaintiffs "already knew the roof needed repairs" from the engineer's report, and disclosure "would have left them in the same position in which the report placed them; needing to make further inquiry." Thus, the court concluded that the estimate "cannot be considered material as a matter of law," and granted judgment to defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision with regard to the consumer protection claim, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "PH West Dover Property, LLC. v. Lalancette Engineers" on Justia Law

The parties were adjoining property owners in the Town of Brandon. Michael and Jirina Obolensky owned forty acres of land, on which they operated a bed-and-breakfast in a large Victorian house located at the lower eastern end of the property. Although not directly visible from their house, there was a beautiful view of the mountains from the highest part of the land, accessible by walking from the house uphill through a field. The adjoining property owners were Robert and Sandra Trombley, who purchased 3.7 acres of land, and shortly after purchasing their parcel, built a home on the lot. The Trombleys' lot was at the top of the rise, adjacent to the Obolenskys' field; the Trombleys had a direct view of the mountains. Soon after the Trombleys built their home, the Obolenskys commissioned a surveyor to conduct a boundary survey. In fall 2007, Mrs. Obolensky placed "no trespassing" signs on a location that she believed (based on the survey) was within her lot. The signs were placed at a location eight feet within an area also claimed by the Trombleys, who had mowed the lawn in the area. A dispute followed, culminating in a call to the police. The police permitted Mr. Trombley to remove the signs that the Obolenskys had placed on the lawn. The Obolenskys subsequently filed suit to determine the boundary, and also raised claims of trespass. The superior court issued an order resolving the underlying case based on the parties' stipulation. Among other things, the stipulated order: (1) established an agreed-upon boundary line based on a survey done by the Trombleys' surveyor; (2) called for an independent surveyor to mark the boundary corners; and (3) provided that the parties "shall each be entitled to erect and maintain any fence allowed by law." The Oblenskys appealed the superior court's order requiring them to alter what the court called a "spite fence" on the Trombleys' land, and challenged the court's judgment concerning its claims of trespass. Finding no reversible error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Obolensky v. Trombley" 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

Defendants Barrett and Linda Gregoire, sought to amend or set aside judgments of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff bank based on claims of fraud and misrepresentation. The dispute underlying this case concerned four multi-family rental properties: three in Washington County and one in Caledonia County that were part of defendants' rental-property business. The bank's loans to defendants were secured by the properties and were cross-collateralized with each other. In March and April 2010, the bank filed foreclosure complaints with respect to the properties. The parties executed a forbearance agreement under which defendants retained control of the properties as landlords, but the tenants were to pay rent directly to the bank. The parties stipulated to the appointment of a receiver to collect rent for the bank. The receiver filed a report with the court stating that defendant Barrett Gregoire was renting to new tenants and collecting rents and security deposits without turning over the funds to the receiver. Shortly thereafter, the bank filed an emergency motion to enforce the receivership order based on allegations that defendant Barrett Gregoire was substantially interfering with the receivership. The court issued a supplemental order, expanding the receiver's authority and placing the receiver in full control of the properties. The bank notified the court that the forbearance was no longer in place, and that it would proceed with foreclosure. The trial court denied the Gregoires' motions to set aside the trial court's grant of the bank's motions. On appeal, defendants argued that there was no final judgment so the order could have been amended without resort to post-judgment proceedings, and even if it was a final order, the court erred in denying their request for relief and in entering judgment of default. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "TBF Financial, LLC v. Gregoire" on Justia Law

Taxpayer Blimar Team Cleaners appealed a superior court decision to uphold the Burlington Board of Tax Appeals' appraisal of its property at 150 Shelburne Road in Burlington at a value of $193,500. Taxpayer contended on appeal that: (1) there was sufficient evidence that the property was not assessed at fair market value to overcome the city appraisal's presumption of validity; and (2) the City of Burlington failed to meet its burden of proof demonstrating the property was assessed at fair market value. Finding no reason to disturb the appraisal or the superior court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Bilmar Team Cleaners" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kathleen Langlois owned a building with commercial space on the first floor and an apartment on the second. She failed to pay the water bill for the property. Plaintiff alleged that she arranged with a representative of the Town of Proctor to disconnect the water service so she would not incur further water expenses, but that the Town failed to do so. In reliance on the Town's promised undertaking, plaintiff discontinued heating the building, causing the pipes containing water to freeze and split under the first floor of the building, which, in turn, flooded the first floor and basement, causing extensive damage to the building. Plaintiff brought this action with four counts: negligence, breach of contract, consumer fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. With respect to the negligence count, the Town argued that it had no duty to disconnect the water service or to disconnect the service with reasonable care or, alternatively, that any duty was based on its contractual obligations and could not give rise to tort liability. With respect to the contract claim, the Town argued that it had no contractual obligation to disconnect the water service and that it was exercising its right under a statutory delinquency collection procedure. It further argued that the contractual relationship between plaintiff and the Town was terminated when plaintiff failed to pay her water bill. The case was then tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict for plaintiff. In answering the special interrogatories, the jury found that there was a contract between plaintiff and the Town "regarding the turning off of her water service," but that the Town had not breached that contract. It found that the Town was negligent, that its negligence was a proximate cause of harm to plaintiff, and that plaintiff's damages were $64,918.44. Among the things the Town argued on appeal, it argued that the court should have instructed the jury to apply comparative negligence, and that the instructions on damages were erroneous because the proper measure of damages was the diminution in value of the building and, in any event, there was no evidence of that diminution. Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that the jury instructions improperly failed to allow the jury to find that the Town breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Supreme Court rejected the Town's argument on appeal that it had no tort duty to properly turn off plaintiff's water. However, the Court found that the trial court erred in instructing the jury: "the instructions as a whole did not contain the spirit of the law. If we could determine from the damages award or the interrogatories that the jury found that plaintiff was not negligent and was not obligated to mitigate damages, we could find an absence of prejudice. We cannot do so here; the damages awarded by the jury were less than plaintiff claimed." On remand, the trial court was ordered to instruct the jury on comparative negligence. Because of the defect in the jury instructions, the Court did not address the remaining issues on appeal. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Langlois v. Town of Proctor" on Justia Law