Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Rosann Maggio, widow and primary beneficiary of the estate of Daniel Maggio, appealed a decision of the superior court which held that Daniel Maggio did not own an interest in real property in Holland, Vermont at the time of his death. Ms. Maggio argued that the trial court erroneously admitted statements from her interrogatory answers in violation of the best evidence rule, the dead man's statutes, and the requirement in V.R.E. 602 that testimony be based on personal knowledge; that the court's conclusions that the property in question was partnership property and that Daniel Maggio ceded his interest in the partnership to his partner, Paul Silas, prior to Mr. Maggio's death were unsupported by the evidence; and that the trial court erred in declining to apply the statute of frauds to the transfer of Mr. Maggio's interest in the partnership. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the transaction at issue in this case involved Mr. Maggio's relinquishment of his interest in the partnership, which left Silas fully vested in all remaining partnership assets, including the Holland property. "The pivotal distinction is between a transaction that constitutes a conveyance of an interest in a partnership, which is personal property regardless of whether the partnership assets thereby conveyed include real property, and a transaction that is a conveyance of the real property itself. The Court concluded that Ms. Maggio's arguments had no merit, and affirmed the superior court. View "In re Estate of Maggio" on Justia Law

This case arose from a separation agreement made thirty-seven years ago between a now-deceased husband and plaintiff, his first wife. Plaintiff contended that her ex-husband promised to devise to her certain assets upon his death, and she brought various claims for equitable relief against defendant, her ex-husband's second wife, who survived him. The superior court concluded that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiff argued that this conclusion was erroneous because, under the governing Massachusetts law, claims based on a contract to make a will do not accrue until the promisor's death. Although the Supreme Court accepted plaintiff's legal premise, it do not accept that it governed this case. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. View "Mueller v. Mueller and Joseph F. Mueller Trust" on Justia Law

The central issue on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case arose from a purported agreement to bifurcate the allowance of a will from the future allowance of a codicil. Farwell W. Perry died leaving behind a wife and four adult children (three sons and a daughter). The probate court set a hearing to consider the allowance of the will. Shortly before the hearing, the decedent's sons filed a motion to continue the hearing to allow the interested persons to determine whether they wished to consent to the allowance of both the will and a newly discovered two-page letter from decedent to his children purporting to be a codicil to his will. The codicil involved a single, discrete piece of the estate: a trust which previously had been established with daughter as sole beneficiary would now include all four children as equal beneficiaries. The probate court granted a continuance and rescheduled the hearing. The decedent’s daughter moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. The probate court denied the motion to dismiss, and the daughter appealed to the superior court. A letter from sons' attorney to the register of the probate court representing that "[t]he several parties have reached an agreement to allow the Last Will and Testament of [decedent]," and that they "have agreed to hold in abeyance the need to hold a hearing on the allowance of the purported Codicil to the will" appeared clear on its face. However, the order issued by the probate court allowing the will made no mention of any bifurcation of the allowance of the will from consideration of the purported codicil. While the parties all knew about the codicil at that time, and the order purported to allow any codicils, only the will itself was admitted. The court order did not grant an exception to the principle that wills and their codicils are considered one instrument. The Supreme Court found the superior court's decision to be made in error: "the law is therefore clear: an order allowing a will normally includes any known codicils, and any later effort to allow a codicil is an impermissible collateral attack on a final order." The Court held that the codicil could not be admitted, reversed the superior court's decision and denied the sons' petition to allow the codicil. View "In re Estate of Perry" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Andrew Kennery, on behalf of the estate of Gladys Kennery, appealed the decision of the Windham Superior Court that granted the State's motion for summary judgment on his complaint alleging negligence, gross negligence, and civil rights violations against the State, two state troopers, and the Vermont Department of Public Safety (VDPS). Plaintiff's lawsuit stemmed from a "welfare check" the troopers performed on Plaintiff's decedent, Gladys Kennery. Gladys's daughter had requested that the troopers check on her elderly mother, but the troopers searched the wrong residence. Meanwhile, Gladys had collapsed in her backyard and was unable to get back up and reach shelter. Gladys was found the next morning and died twelve days later from hypothermia caused by prolonged exposure to the cold. The superior court held that the State owed no duty of reasonable care in performing the welfare check, thereby defeating Plaintiff's claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. Genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether a duty of care was created under the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 324A based upon the State's undertaking to perform the welfare check and whether the troopers breached that duty such that the State was liable under the Vermont Tort Claims Act (VTCA). The Court also held that the court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claim of gross negligence against the troopers. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kennery v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Terrance White appealed a superior court's order in his wrongful death action that granted summary judgment to Defendant Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc. This case arose from the suicide of Plaintiff's fourteen-year-old daughter. Plaintiff sued Defendant, which employed a psychiatrist who was briefly involved with the decedent's case through a telepsychiatry research study. Plaintiff argued that summary judgment was improperly granted on the issue of the duty owed to decedent by the psychiatrist. Ultimately, the trial court found that the psychiatrist's contact with decedent was "so minimal as to not establish a physician-patient relationship," and consequently found that no duty existed at the time of decedent's death. Even assuming that a doctor-patient relationship was established, the court concluded that it was terminated following the video-conference and, thus, any duty was extinguished by termination of the relationship and no duty existed at the time of decedent's death. The court thus granted defendant's summary judgment motion. Plaintiff argued that the court erred in finding that the doctor owed no duty to decedent. They maintained that the doctor had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect decedent from the danger she posed to herself, and that the doctor did not effectively terminate the doctor-patient relationship prior to decedent's death. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiff and thus reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for additional proceedings. View "White v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Natalie Billings appealed a family court's final judgment order in favor of her husband Jireh Billings, Sr.  Plaintiff argued on appeal: (1) the family court abused its discretion by granting husband's motion in limine excluding evidence of any revocable trusts or wills under which he may be a beneficiary; (2) the family court abused its discretion when it refused to include as marital property suitable for distribution two irrevocable trusts of which husband is a beneficiary; and (3) the family court abused its discretion by nullifying husband's maintenance arrearage of $8,312.74.  Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the family court's decision with regard to the distribution of property and the maintenance award. The Court affirmed the family court on all other issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Billings v. Billings" on Justia Law

This case originated from a quiet-title action by Defendant Richard Rupe and his father, Michael C. Rupe, who laid claim to certain mineral rights by way of adverse possession. Plaintiff Gary Rupe, Richard's brother, subsequently asserted his own claim to the mineral rights in question, and the probate court granted him a one-third interest in the rights.  Defendant and his father appealed the probate decision to the superior court, which, after first granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on certain issues, ultimately dismissed plaintiff's claim to the mineral rights and awarded all rights, title, and interest to Defendant. Plaintiff appealed the superior court judgment, arguing: (1) the court exceeded its authority by considering more than the issues raised in the statement of questions submitted on appeal from the probate court; (2) the court misstated the elements of proof for adverse possession and misapplied the law; (3) the court erred in failing to find adverse possession through co-tenancy; and (4) the court erred in its requirements relating to a claim of unjust enrichment. Taking each in turn, the Supreme Court reviewed the superior court record and affirmed its decision with respect to all of Plaintiff's issues on appeal. View "In re The Estates of Herbert Allen, Edward Allen and Edna Allen " on Justia Law

Appellant, Testator Orville Tucker's daughter, sought to reverse a trial court judgment that declined to admit Testator's purported last will and testament to probate.  This judgment followed a trial by jury, which rendered a special verdict that found Testator lacked testamentary capacity.  Appellant raised various issues relating to the burden of proof, the use of the doctrine of suspicious circumstances, the jury instructions, and the denial of post-judgment motions.  Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that all of Appellant's claims were moot or unpreserved, and accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "In re Estate of Orville Tucker" on Justia Law

This case stems from a dispute over the 1973 William C. Alden Trust (the Trust) benefiting the Grantor's second wife Nancy Alden, his two children by Nancy, and his three children from his first marriage. Todd Alden and Julia Alden Dee, two of Grantor's children by his first marriage, alleged that Nancy in her capacity as trustee, acted fraudulently and in violation of her fiduciary duties in her administration of the Trust and invaded trust principal through self-dealing, concealment, and misrepresentations. They sought to hold Nancy and her two children liable for damages resulting from the alleged improprieties. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted that of the Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, Estate of Nancy B. Alden. Julia Dee and Todd Alden appealed. The sum of Defendants' arguments to the Supreme Court contended that there were multiple disputed issues of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment. Upon review of the lengthy history of the Trust and the parties' litigation pertaining to the Trust, the Court found that Defendants' simply failed to prove their case: "[a] lack of sufficient evidence on one side does not mean a disputed issue of fact remains." The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Trust. View "In re Estate of Alden" on Justia Law

Appellants Shenandoah, LLC, David Shlansky, Ting Chang, and other entities and individuals, appealed the Environmental Court's summary judgment decision upholding an "Act 250" jurisdictional opinion. Appellants have a variety of overlapping interests. Mr. Shlansky created an irrevocable trust (Trust) to benefit his and his wife Chang's children. As settler of the Trust, Mr. Shlansky contributed the property that is the subject of the underlying jurisdictional opinion. The Trust has an ownership stake in various companies that have engaged in land-development activities in the relevant jurisdictional area. Shenandoah, LLC, one such created entity, sought to build a ten-unit residential housing project. In August 2008, Shenandoah requested a jurisdictional opinion to determine if the project required an "Act 250" permit. In a September 2008 decision, the district coordinator found that the project required an Act 250 permit because it involved the construction of a housing project with ten or more units. Appellants appealed portions of this decision to the Environmental Court. The court upheld the district coordinator's jurisdictional opinion. The court concluded that Mr. Shlansky and Ms. Chang benefited from the Trust's land-development activities so the Trust's development activities were attributable to them personally. Appellants challenged this conclusion on appeal. As support for their position, they pointed to the affidavits filed by Mr. Shlansky, Ms. Chang and "the legal existence of the Trust, which is irrevocable." Upon review of the lower court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Court's decision. As the Environmental Court concluded, benefit to the parents rendered them "persons" affiliated with subdivisions and development previously undertaken by entities owned or affiliated with the Trust as defined by Act 250. View "In re Shenandoah LLC" on Justia Law