Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This litigation arose from the construction of a 143-unit condominium complex. Plaintiff Long Trail House Condominium Association appealed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant general contractor Engelberth Construction, Inc. on its complaint. The Association argued that the court erred in: (1) applying the economic loss rule to bar its negligence claim; and (2) dismissing its breach of implied warranty claim. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decision. View "Long Trail House Condominium Assoc. v. Engelberth Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Foti Fuels, Inc. (Foti), a fuel distributor, appealed a Civil Division’s judgment in favor of Evans Group, Inc. (Evans), also a fuel distributor. Evans cancelled its agreement to sell fuel to Foti for resale and delivery to a retail gasoline station, and sued for payment of an outstanding balance of $68,864. Foti claimed the unilateral termination of the agreement violated the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) which regulates fuel franchise agreements. The trial court determined that Foti was not a "franchisee" within the meaning of the PMPA and, therefore, not entitled to its contract termination protections. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Evans Group, Inc. v. Foti" on Justia Law

Petitioner Charlotte Rumsey appealed a decision by the Vermont Human Services Board which denied her Choices for Care (CFC) Services on a tie vote of the Board. The issue before the Board was whether petitioner met the eligibility requirements for either highest need or high need services. Petitioner was seventy-four years of age at the time of the Board's evidentiary hearing and lived alone. She suffers from chronic seizure disorder, osteoarthritis of the knees and ankles, cerebral vascular disease, depression, anxiety, and obesity. She applied for CFC benefits to obtain home-delivered services to allow her to remain safely in her home. To avoid being placed on a waiting list, she must meet eligibility requirements for highest need or high need services. The hearing officer issued her proposed findings of fact, a recommended decision to affirm the DAIL denial, and a statement of reasons. The Board met to consider this and other cases with six of seven members present. After hearing argument, the six members tied on whether to accept the hearing officer's recommendation. The Board did unanimously accept the hearing officer's findings of fact. It decided that in the case of a tie vote, the "Department's original decision stands." Following the Board decision, petitioner moved to reopen the case, seeking a Board decision based on the vote of all seven members. Petitioner also argued that the decision did not contain findings on the elements of the CFC eligibility standards. DAIL opposed the motion. The Board denied the motion. It concluded that the findings were complete. In response to petitioner's request for a vote by all seven members, the Board stated that, if the case were reopened, there would be no guarantee "that all seven members would be present." The Board noted that it was following the rule of courts for instances where there is a tie vote and that reopening would only delay an authoritative decision from the Supreme Court on the meaning of the CFC regulations. On appeal, both parties argued that the Supreme Court should reach the merits of the case; in the alternative, petitioner sought a remand for proper findings and to have all seven of the Board members decide the case. DAIL opposed the alternative and suggested that the Court instead declare the meaning of the regulations and remand for the Board to find the relevant facts and render a decision. The Board denied petitioner's motion to reopen in part because it did not want to delay the case reaching the Supreme Court for an authoritative interpretation of the CFC regulations. The Court did not agree with this reasoning. In its view, the quality of the Court's decision improved when it had "the informed analysis and decision of the Board. The decision before us has no reasoning or conclusions, and we do not know why either of the sides voted as it did." Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Rumsey" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeffrey Brandt was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree aggravated domestic assault and one count of driving with a license suspended (DLS). On appeal to the Supreme Court, he raised three arguments: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the charges and grant him separate trials; (2) the jury instruction on excited utterances improperly bolstered the credibility of the complainant's out-of-court statement; and (3) the prosecutor's opening and closing arguments were inappropriate and denied him a fair trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Vermont v. Brandt" on Justia Law

Defendant Paul Bourn was convicted in superior court of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon following an incident where he pointed an unloaded muzzleloader toward two police officers who were attempting to remove him from a home. He appealed his convictions, arguing first that the court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon requires proof of specific intent to threaten, and second, that such intent may be negated by the defendant's diminished capacity. Holding that Vermont's aggravated assault statute requires specific intent, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Vermont v. Bourn" on Justia Law

In 2006, Petitioner Paul Kirby was charged with five counts of possessing child pornography after a search of his computer revealed five different video depictions of sexual conduct by a child or children. Evidence suggested that each video was downloaded independently and stored as a separate file on petitioner's computer. Petitioner pled guilty to three counts of possession in exchange for dismissal of the remaining two counts. Petitioner was sentenced to three concurrent prison terms of four to fifteen years. In 2008, Petitioner acting pro se, filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), and amended the petition with the assistance of counsel in 2009. The petition contained two claims: (1) that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to research, investigate, and inform him of the possibility of asserting a challenge to the multiple charges of possession that could have resulted in the five charges being reduced to one; and (2) because counsel failed to advise him on this legal theory prior to entering his plea agreement, petitioner's subsequent guilty pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. Petitioner moved for summary judgment on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The State opposed Petitioner's motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on both claims. The superior court granted the State's motion for summary judgment. Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel's assessment of the viability of a multiplicity challenge under 13 V.S.A. 2827(a) was not unreasonable, and thus did not create a material misunderstanding upon which Petitioner based his guilty pleas. Petitioner's pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily and therefore he was not entitled to post-conviction relief. View "In re Kirby" on Justia Law

Appellants John and Margaret Toor appealed a decision of the Superior Court, Environmental Division, which upheld a notice of violation issued by the Town of Grand Isle Zoning Administrator for changing the use of their single-family home in Grand Isle without obtaining a zoning permit. On appeal, appellants argued that renting their home did not constitute a change in use under the Town's zoning ordinance, and accordingly they were not required to obtain a zoning permit prior to renting. Upon review of the applicable zoning ordinances and the parites' briefs on appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with Appellants and reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision. View "In re Toor & Toor Living Trust NOV" on Justia Law

Guardian appealed an order of the probate division directing that a court-ordered guardianship evaluation performed by Rutland Mental Health Services, Inc. (RMHS) be placed with the court under seal. Guardian argued that the court exceeded its authority, or abused its discretion to the extent that it had any, in directing RMHS to return the evaluation to the court to be sealed. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's conclusion after review of this case that the probate court had authority to restrict access to the original evaluation, it agreed with guardian that the court abused its discretion as a matter of law in ordering the sealing of this particular evaluation, given the circumstances of the case and the court’s reasoning for doing so. View "In re Guardianship of A.S." on Justia Law

Plaintiff David Shaddy appealed a trial court's dismissal of his complaint against the Brattleboro Retreat and some of its employees. Plaintiff, a former Retreat employee, brought claims of defamation, obstruction of justice, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and intentional interference with a contract, arising from the Retreat’s allegation that he unlawfully diverted regulated drugs from the medication room at its facility. The court dismissed the entire complaint on the ground that, having been resolved in proceeding before the Department of Labor and in plaintiff’s criminal case, the issue of whether plaintiff diverted the drugs was res judicata. The court also stated alternative grounds for dismissing all of the claims against the individual defendants, as well as the IIED, obstruction-of-justice, and intentional-interference-with-a-contract claims against both the individual defendants and the Retreat. Plaintiff argued that the court erred in dismissing his claims on the basis of res judicata and by failing to properly consider his complaint in light of his pro se status. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the court’s dismissal of the defamation claim against the Retreat, but otherwise affirmed its decision. View "Shaddy v. Brattleboro Retreat et al." on Justia Law

Fletcher Allen Health Care (FAHC) appealed a decision of the Vermont Employment Security Board finding claimant, Abdullahi Mohamed, eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The Board found that claimant’s discharge for off-duty criminal conduct did not constitute gross misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal, FAHC argued that the Legislature’s recent amendments to the Vermont Unemployment Compensation Act required the Board to disqualify claimants from receiving unemployment compensation benefits when an employer can no longer retain them as a result of off-duty criminal conduct. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mohamed v. Fletcher Allen Health Care" on Justia Law