Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Barrett Holby, Grethe Holby, Kristin Holby, and Wegard Holby appealed orders of the Public Service Board which granted New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) authorizing the installation of a monopine telecommunications tower and associated facilities in Weston, and denying the Holbys' motion to alter the CPG order. The Holbys' properties either abut the property on which the proposed project is to be built, or are in close proximity to it. The Holbys' appeal was grounded on their claims that they were denied procedural due process in connection with the Board proceeding. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Holbys did not have constitutionally protected interests at stake, and therefore affirmed the Public Service Board's decision. View "In re Petition of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility" on Justia Law

Defendant Vaillancourt Tree and Landscape Service appealed a trial court decision denying its post-trial motion for attorney's fees and costs under a theory of implied indemnification.  The issue on appeal was whether indemnity for attorney's fees is appropriate where a jury has found the putative indemnitor not liable in the underlying suit. Plaintiff Leonard Knappmiller owns a commercial property directly abutting a property owned by Defendants Joseph and Carolyn Bove.  This case grew from a dispute between Knappmiller and the Boves regarding the Boves' decision to cut down and remove a row of white cedar trees that allegedly straddled their property line.  The Boves hired Vaillancourt to cut and remove the trees.  Following the removal, Knappmiller filed a claim against the Boves for wrongful cutting of trees, alleging that the trees were located on Knappmiller's property and were removed without his consent.  Knappmiller later amended his complaint, adding Vaillancourt as a codefendant.  Vaillancourt consequently cross-claimed against the Boves for negligence, breach of contract, and indemnity.  Vaillancourt's cross-claim alleged that it had entered into a contract with the Boves, and that the Boves did not, but should have, informed Vaillancourt about tree ownership issues with Knappmiller before the trees were cut down and removed.  Vaillancourt's cross-claim demanded "judgment against the Boves . . . for indemnity, if Vaillancourt is found liable to Plaintiff and for any other damages suffered by Vaillancourt resulting from the Boves' negligence and breach of contract." Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court: "[e]ven if [the Court] were to dispense with a requirement of finding fault on behalf of the Boves, the jury specifically found neither the Boves nor Vaillancourt liable for any wrongful act.  The jury did not reach Vaillancourt's cross-claim against the Boves because Vaillancourt requested attorney's fees only if Vaillancourt was found liable in the underlying suit.  More importantly, Vaillancourt did not object to the jury charge or the special verdict form -- both of which unequivocally instructed the jury to reach Vaillancourt's indemnity claim only if Knappmiller prevailed.  [The Court] therefore cannot discern any support for an award of attorney's fees, other than Vaillancourt's conclusory allegations that the Boves knew the trees straddled the boundary line and had a duty to inform Vaillancourt of that fact." View "Knappmiller v. Bove" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Russell and Mary Ann Rueger and John Moyers appealed a trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Natural Resources Board and the District #9 Environmental Commission of Vermont. The matter arose from an Access to Public Records Act request. The court concluded that certain records held by Defendants reflected deliberations of an agency acting in a quasi-judicial role, and those were exempt from disclosure. Plaintiffs argued on appeal that the court erred in interpreting the Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the documents in question fell within the plain language of the Act, and were indeed exempt. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Rueger v. Natural Resources Bd." on Justia Law

In 1995, Petitioner John Rhodes, a resident of the Town of Georgia, petitioned his local governing body, the selectboard, to clarify several issues surrounding two roads that bordered his land.  While this case began as a suit over the existence and use of two ancient roads, "it grew over time into a test of constitutional guarantees and a saga about abuse of power."  After almost fifteen years of litigation, including two side trips to federal court, the trial court entered judgment against the Town of Georgia.  The court found that Petitioner's request to access his land over town roads had been repeatedly and maliciously frustrated by the Town selectboard in an ongoing attempt to protect the value of a neighbor's property, a violation of Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution, the Common Benefits Clause.  The court concluded that Article 7 was self-executing and awarded monetary damages for the constitutional violation.  In this consolidated appeal, the Town of Georgia sought to overturn the trial court decision.  Upon careful review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of liability against the Town: the Court "underscore[d] the unique circumstances" of this case, finding that the "trial court's unchallenged findings describe a deliberate, decades-long course of discriminatory conduct by the Town so malicious and self-serving as to deny Rhodes his fundamental rights to due process and equal treatment under the Vermont Constitution.  Absent such egregious misconduct, and clear proof of the exacting elements necessary for relief, towns and local officials have no cause for concern about the myriad decisions made in the normal exercise of authority.  Failing to recognize a remedy in a case such as this, however, would undermine the constitutional principles that all Vermonters hold dear.  Vermont has consistently sustained its essence as one big small town by affirming and reinforcing the fundamental values that define it.  This decision affirms those values." View "In re Town Highway No. 20 Town of Georgia" on Justia Law

Defendant Randy J. Rouleau appealed the decision of the Washington Civil Division which held that Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee for the registered holders of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Security Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-CF2 (Wells Fargo), was entitled to enforce his personal guaranty of a promissory note secured by mortgages on five mobile home parks.  The civil division concluded that Wells Fargo could enforce the guaranty as the holder of the note under 9A V.S.A. § 3-301(i), which defines who may enforce a negotiable instrument.  Defendant argued that the court erred in ruling that Wells Fargo has standing to enforce the guaranty because Wells Fargo could not prove the chain of assignments from the original lender to itself and therefore that Wells Fargo, and not some third party, is the assignee of the guaranty.  Defendant also argued that the court erred in treating assignment of the note as sufficient to show assignment of the guaranty because the guaranty, in contrast to the note, is a separate contract that must be expressly assigned.  Finally, defendant argued that because Wells Fargo lacked standing to enforce the guaranty, the court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement action.  Based on the evidence presented, the Supreme Court could not conclude that the court's finding that Wells Fargo was assigned the note and mortgage was clearly erroneous.  Moreover, the court's finding on this point, essential to Wells Fargo's status as a holder, directly supports its conclusion that Wells Fargo has standing to enforce the guaranty.  Because Wells Fargo had standing, Defendant's final argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement action has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the civil division. View "Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota v. Rouleau" on Justia Law

This condemnation case was filed in July 1992, "making it very, very old."  On its fourth time reviewing this matter, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the superior court abused its discretion when it declined to find that there had been a material increase in the value of a sand pit owned by Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Company (HS&G) between 2000 and 2009.  Upon review, the Court concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion, and affirmed the court’s denial of HS&G’s motion to amend the final judgment. View "In re Chittenden Solid Waste District" on Justia Law

Taxpayer Margaret Murray appealed a superior court's order that dismissed her tax abatement appeal. On appeal to the Supreme Court, she argued that the superior court erroneously concluded that she could not appeal the abatement decision because she failed to challenge the valuation of the property in the appraisal process.  Upon review, the Court concluded that Taxpayer's abatement appeal to the superior court was not foreclosed by her failure to appeal the valuation of her property, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Murray v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs James and Heidi Glassford, who brought suit to obtain compensation for an allegedly negligent home inspection, appealed a superior court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of home inspector Defendants The BrickKicker and GDM Home Services, Inc. (a franchisee of BrickKicker) based on the terms of a binding arbitration agreement in the parties' contract. In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the superior court erred in rejecting Plaintiffs' contention that the terms of the home inspection contract were unconscionable under the common law and unfair and deceptive under Vermont’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). Upon review of the contract in question, as well as the superior court record, the Supreme Court found the contractual provisions limiting liability to the cost of the inspection and yet requiring arbitration that would necessarily cost more than the amount of the liability limit unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Glassford v. BrickKicker" on Justia Law

Taxpayer-Petitioner Michael Garbitelli appealed a superior court judgment that affirmed the Town of Brookfield Board of Abatement's denial of his request for a tax abatement. During a townwide reappraisal in 2007, Petitioner refused to allow the listers to inspect his property, other than the foyer and the basement. His property was assessed at $1.6 million. Petitioner then appealed this assessment, and the Supreme Court affirmed, noting that Petitioner had refused entry to the tax assessor and therefore failed to provide an adequate basis to demonstrate that the assessment was erroneous. Taxpayer later allowed entry to the listers for 2009, which resulted in an assessment of $957,000. Taxpayer then moved for a tax abatement for the years 2007 and 2008. The Board denied the request, finding that there was no mistake attributable to the listers since they were denied entry and were forced to use the best information available to them. Although the Supreme Court agreed with Petitioner's interpretation of the abatement statute’s meaning, it reached the same result as the superior court: "[Petitioner] argues principally that the 'extreme disparity' between $1.6 million and $957,000 is an 'obvious mistake' amounting to manifest error." The Court disagreed with that premise and affirmed the superior court. View "Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Craig Pease appealed the trial court’s summary judgment determination that Defendants the Windsor Development & Review Board (DRB) and the Town of Windsor had fully responded to his Public Records Act (PRA) request and had not violated his constitutional rights. On appeal, Plaintiff contended that Defendants’ responses to his PRA requests were improperly made through counsel and the custodian of records and thus did not comply with the statute. He also contended that the trial court erred in both its conclusion that his free speech claims against defendants based on their filing of a motion for protective order were barred by litigation immunity and its conclusion that the remainder of his alleged free speech violations were cured by subsequent hearings. Plaintiff's property abuts another lot that is the site of a proposed subdivision development, Morgan Meadows. The Windsor Development Review Board (DRB) approved the subdivision application; Plaintiff, through counsel, appealed this decision to the superior court. In connection with that appeal, Plaintiff made written pro se public records requests to the Town’s Zoning Administrator, and to the seven individual members of the DRB. One DRB member responded personally to Plaintiff’s requests by sending Plaintiff the records he requested. The remaining members responded through the Zoning Administrator. Following a dispute over whether the DRB fully cooperated with Plaintiff's requests, the Town ultimately filed a motion for protective order asking the superior court to enjoin Plaintiff from requesting additional records or contacting DRB members other than through counsel. The Town argued that his public records requests were actually nothing more than discovery requests in the pending appeal, and therefore, Plaintiff’s attorney of record should be the one seeking the records. Upon review of the superior court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found the DRB complied with Plaintiff's requests, and that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated by any of the DRB's actions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the DRB. View "Pease v. Windsor Dev. & Review Bd" on Justia Law