Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group neighbors (Neighbors-Appellants) in the Town of Dorset appealed an Environmental Court decision that granted Applicant Bradford Tyler’s application for a zoning permit for the construction of a self-storage facility in the Dorset Village Commercial District. Appellants contend that the court erred in determining the rental storage units to be an authorized land use within the applicable Dorset zoning district. Applicant Tyler owns and resides on a 5.6-acre property located in the Village Commercial District (VC District) of Dorset. He filed for a zoning permit to construct a self-storage facility on his property. The Town Planning Commission issued written approval of applicant’s site development plan. Following this, the Town Zoning Administrator issued a zoning permit. Interested neighbors appealed to the Dorset Zoning Board of Adjustment, contending that applicant’s proposed self-storage facility is not a “retail sales/rentals” use, as required by the town’s Zoning Bylaws for development in the VC District. Neighbors, in response to applicant questioning the validity of a decision rendered by less than a majority of the Board, appealed to the Environmental Court. They asserted that, regardless of the majority vote issue, the earlier approval by the Zoning Administrator was erroneous and should be voided. Applicant cross-appealed, arguing that the Board’s denial was invalid and that the proposed facility was a permitted use in the VC District. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the question of whether a storage facility was permitted. The Environmental Court granted applicant’s motion and denied Neighbors’, holding that the proposed use was permissible as a “retail rental.” Upon review of the lower court's record and the applicable zoning statutes, the Supreme Court acknowledged the conflict created by a plain reading of the definition of "retail" in the statute: "[d]efining “retail” in terms of sales arguably creates a conflict when used to define “retail rentals” . .. Using the common understanding of the words involved, and in the context of the overall scheme and purpose of the VC District, it is clear that the Bylaws’ drafters intended “retail sales/rentals” to include only residential and small-scale commercial establishments trading in services or in goods, for sale and for rent, as opposed to renting storage space as applicant proposes." Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the Environmental Court. View "In re Tyler Self-Storage Unit Permits" on Justia Law

Mountain View Community School, Inc. appealed a trial court order that rejected its request for a property tax exemption for "lands owned or leased by colleges, academies or other public schools" under state law. Mountain View contended the court misinterpreted the law in denying the requested exemption. For a number of years, Mountain View operated a private nonsectarian school for students from preschool through eighth grade at two separate locations in the City of Rutland. Mountain View's only use of the properties was as a school. While maintaining that it was statutorily exempt from the payment of property taxes, Mountain View nevertheless paid them under protest from 1994 through 2007. When the school's assessed value increased dramatically in 2006 and 2007, however, it sought an exemption. The City declined to grant the exemption, and in response, Mountain View filed suit for declaratory relief and an injunction to prevent a threatened tax sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower the court mistakenly conflated the "public use" and "public school" exemptions in the statute, seeking to determine whether the school served "an indefinite class" under the former when, in fact, Mountain View was relying on the latter. The Court reversed the decision of the lower court. View "Mountain View Community School, Inc. v. City of Rutland" on Justia Law

Defendant Graham Simmons appealed a district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a computer and other stolen items discovered in the execution of a search warrant at his residence. Probable cause supporting the warrant was obtained through subpoenas requiring production of internet addresses and data from internet service providers. Defendant challenged the subpoena of internet records as a warrantless search in violation of the state constitution. Furthermore, Defendant contended that information in the warrant was supplied by an unknown tipster whose reliability was not reasonably established. Upon review of the evidence and the trial record, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant failed to properly preserve his first contention and held that the trial court's refusal to suppress the evidence was not plain error. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the informant's input and credibility was ultimately irrelevant to issuing the warrant. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Vermont v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Defendants Charles and Hubert Lovell appealed a grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff Duane Amsden. In 1997, Phillip Lovell, father of Charles and Hubert, executed a will appointing Charles and his stepson Duane as co-executors. He also executed a power of attorney naming Charles as his attorney-in-fact. The principal asset of the senior Lovell's estate was a farm. In 2003, Philip Lovell's wife Zada quitclaimed her interest in the farm to her husband. Then, Charles, acting as attorney-in-fact, executed a quitclaim deed conveying the farm from his father to Hubert and himself for no consideration. Several of the Lovell's other children and stepchildren, including Plaintiff, signed a consent statement dated May 31, 2003, approving the transfer. In 2008, following the death of Zada Lovell, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in the probate court claiming the transfer of the farm to defendants was invalid under state law, and sought to establish the estate of Phillip Lovell as the farm's rightful owner. The probate court issued a declaratory judgment order in favor of Defendants, finding that the quitclaim transfer was valid because the language of the POA failed to restrict defendant Charles Lovell's power to gift the property to himself or others. The superior court reversed, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the amended POA statute prohibited an attorney-in-fact from making gifts of the principal's property to himself or others unless the POA "explicitly" granted such authority. Defendants appealed. Upon review of the POA and records of the Lovell estate, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court order. The Court found that Charles Lovell could not, pursuant to his powers as his father's attorney-in-fact, transfer title of his father's farm to himself and his brother, Hubert Lovell, where the power of attorney failed to explicitly grant the power to make such a gift. View "In re Estate of Lovell" on Justia Law

This case concerned the use of a hilltop cemetery on a farm in Hartland, Vermont. The petitioner, Harold Guite, now owns the farm property. He claimed that the cemetery plot was owned by heirs of the Aldrich family, who settled the property as a farm in approximately 1775 and remained there until selling the farm in 1853. Respondent Jerome King's family purchased the farm property in 1950 and owned it until 1983. Prior to selling the property, Respondent buried the cremated remains of his parents in the hilltop cemetery. Petitioner was aware of the cemetery and its location when he bought the property. Petitioner filed suit for a declaratory judgment regarding his rights in the hilltop cemetery. Petitioner wanted to remove the cemetery and return the plot to "private farm property." Respondent claimed that the Aldrich family reserved only an easement in the cemetery plot. Thus, he contended title to the plot remained with the farm so that he could use it to bury his parents, and, by the deed to the property and by operation of Vermont law, the remains could not be moved. The trial court adopted Respondent's theory and denied the petition. Upon review of the trial court records, the Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner's theory was correct and reversed the decision against him. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Guite" on Justia Law

Defendant Edward Charbonneau unsuccessfully challenged his conviction on simple assault. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying him a new trial over evidence that was not available at the time of trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that the decision to grant a motion for a new trial was within the discretion of the trial court, and absent plain error in the record, the Supreme Court would not disturb the decision. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Defendant Gregory Sommer unsuccessfully appealed the sentence he received by trial court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that he was entitled to credit for time he spent in jail while waiting for the trial court to sentence him. The Supreme Court found that Defendant was premature in bringing his request to the court before the Department of Corrections had issued an official sentencing calculation. Furthermore, the Court found that Defendant's own calculation of the time credit was wrong. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Defendant's petition.

Defendant Stowe Mountain Club, LLC (SMC) appealed a judgment in favor of Plaintiff David Smalley. SMC and Mr. Smalley were neighbors. The trial court found that portions of a golf course built and operated by SMC violated certain restrictive covenants in Mr. Smalleyâs deed. On appeal, SMC argued that the court misinterpreted the covenants in Mr. Smalleyâs deed, and as a result, refused to admit certain evidence or allow for additional discovery to allow the court to fully consider the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court record, and found that the parties moved for summary judgment before the exact nature of issues concerning the chain-of-title and restrictive covenants could be fully developed. The Court felt the decision was therefore premature and reversed the trial courtâs grant of summary judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case stemmed from a contract between the City of Rutland and the Vermont Swim Association (VSA). The City granted VSA use of a City facility for a swim meet. A child attending the swim meet was injured when she fell from a piece of playground equipment where the meet was held. The childâs parents, Plaintiffs David and Susan Southwick, sued the City, which then sued VSA. The City sought indemnity from VSA pursuant to the contract between them. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the City, and awarded $700,000 on the indemnity claim. VSA appealed, arguing that the contract contained no express intent to indemnify the City for the Cityâs negligence. The Supreme Court found that the terms and circumstances of the agreement between the City and VSA demonstrated that VSA contracted to indemnify the City for claims such as those resulting from the Southwicksâ injury. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.

Husband Lee Herring appealed the family courtâs denial of his motion to terminate spousal maintenance to his ex-wife Kimberly Herring. Eight months after the order of divorce maintenance was entered, Mr. Herring was found guilty of sexual assault. The stateâs first prosecution of Mr. Herring ended in a hung jury, which occurred before the divorce was granted. After the second trial, he was sentenced. Mr. Herring paid maintenance pursuant to the divorce order for the first six months following the divorce, but stopped making payments once he was incarcerated. Mr. Herring petitioned the family court to modify the maintenance award since he would have no means of paying it from jail. The family court reasoned that the incarceration was not an unanticipated change in his situation and denied his motion to modify the maintenance award. The Supreme Court could not conclude that the pendency of the criminal proceedings made his resulting loss of income âanticipatedâ in terms of his ability to pay the maintenance award. The Court reversed the family courtâs decision to deny Mr. Herring a modification to the maintenance award, and remanded the case for further proceedings.