Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Hartford police officers responded to a report of a possible burglary in progress, and used considerable force in restraining the suspect. The alleged burglar turned out to be the homeowner, who was disoriented due to a medical condition. Journalist Anne Galloway requested records relating to the police contact with the homeowner from the chief of police. The chief denied Galloway's request, as did the town manager when Galloway appealed the chief's decision. After Galloway filed an action to compel production of the records, the superior court ruled that under the Public Records Act's (PRA) exemption for police investigations, the police did not need to provide Galloway with any records produced or acquired before the point at which the officers decided against charging the homeowner with a criminal offense. Galloway then appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that because the homeowner's detention amounted to an arrest, the records in question must be disclosed under the PRA's proviso that "records reflecting the initial arrest of a person . . . shall be public." View "Galloway v. Town of Hartford" on Justia Law

The Franklin County Sheriff's Office appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of the St. Albans City Police Department. The Sheriff's Office contended that the City Police Department engaged in an unfair method of competition with the intent to harm competition under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act's (VCFA) predatory pricing provision. Specifically, the Sheriff's Office argued that the City Police Department submitted an "artificially low" bid in response to the Town of St. Albans's request for proposals for law enforcement services. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed. "Here, the 'competitors' are all statutorily created entities, meaning that one entity cannot lower its prices so as to put another out of business, nor can potential entrants be deterred from entering the 'market' because the statutory scheme allows no new entrants. Although there is competition within a limited sphere as between the statutorily empowered entities, there is no threat of monopolization by any one of them. Thus, the Sheriff's Office's injuries alleged in the complaint do not fall within the zone of interests to be protected by Vermont's predatory pricing statute. . . .the Sheriff's Office was not denied something in which it had a legally protected interest, nor is its claim within the zone of interests protected by the statute, and it therefore lack[ed] constitutional and prudential standing." View "Franklin County Sheriff's Office v. St. Albans City Police Department" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Richard Daniels wanted to foreclose on a mortgage on two parcels of real property owned by defendant Elks Club of Hartford, Vermont. Defendant creditors, who include the Vermont Human Rights Commission, four individual women, and the Watts Law Firm, all have junior security interests in the property at issue and opposed foreclosure. Creditors appealed a trial court decision granting plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff had standing to foreclose and was entitled to a judgment of foreclosure against all parties, and dismissing creditors' counterclaims. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision to include certain advances in the mortgage amount and the dismissal of the counterclaims. View "Daniels v. Elks Club of Hartford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Stephen J. Pcolar appealed Superior Court verdict in favor of defendant Casella Waste Systems, Inc. Plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence in connection with an incident where the gripper arm of a garbage truck owned by Casella and operated by defendant Robert Smith struck him. The superior court charged the jury to compare the negligence of the parties, and the jury returned a verdict assigning seventy percent of the causative negligence to plaintiff, barring any recovery. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pcolar v. Caselle Waste Systems and Smith" 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

Kayla Eaton's lawsuit against her former employer and supervisor for sexual assault was dismissed for failure to prosecute. She claimed that her ability to prosecute the case was thwarted by a licensed polygraph examiner, Leroy Prior, who determined that she did not tell the truth in responding to questions about the alleged assault. Ms. Eaton and her father Robert Eaton filed this action against Prior, claiming negligent administration of the polygraph examination, and against the Vermont State Police and Lt. Matthew Belmay, alleging that they improperly disclosed the examination results and conspired to cover up Prior's misconduct. The trial court entered judgment for defendants on the ground that the suit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to actions for "injuries to the person," under 12 V.S.A. 512(4), and the Eatons appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly concluded the statute of limitations applied to this case, however, the court mistakenly failed to consider the applicability of 12 V.S.A. 511's general six-year limitation period to the claims for economic harm resulting from dismissal of the underlying lawsuit and other alleged economic costs.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Eaton v. Prior" on Justia Law

Wife Maura Breslin appealed a family court order that required her to sign a waiver to correct a previously filed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) which erroneously gave her survivorship benefits in her former husband's pension. The divorce order, fully incorporating the terms of the separation agreement, awarded wife “one half of the pension, as of the date of separation and the [husband] is awarded the remainder." A QDRO signed by wife’s attorney was filed in 2009 to implement the terms of the order. The QDRO mistakenly awarded wife survivorship benefits in husband’s pension, contrary to the divorce order which merely provided wife with one-half of the pension, with remainder to husband. The family division approved the QDRO, and the plan administrator implemented it, which resulted in payments being made to wife. Husband did not object to the submission of the 2009 QDRO, and did not appeal its approval. In 2010, wife and husband jointly filed a new QDRO, which omitted the erroneous section regarding survivorship benefits. The family division approved the QDRO. In January 2011, the plan administrator rejected the QDRO because payments had already begun under the 2009 QDRO. The plan administrator noted that wife could fix this problem by “waiv[ing] away her right” to the survivorship benefits. Husband’s attorney contacted wife’s attorney numerous times between January and March, inquiring as to her position on the waiver issue. Having not heard anything, husband filed a motion to enforce in March 2011. The court held a chambers conference in August 2011, and issued an entry order the same month concluding that wife is not entitled to the survivorship benefits. The court found that the divorce order merely granted wife “a defined, independent right to one half the pension,” while husband was granted his own separate pension rights. The court ordered wife to execute the waiver to restore to husband and his family the sole right to any survivorship benefits. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the 2009 QDRO purported to modify the underlying property division, it was invalid and not entitled to preclusive effect. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the family court order. View "Breslin v. Synnott" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court concerned whether a truck idling in the middle of the night in the parking lot of an auto repair shop that had previously been burglarized was sufficient to give police reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Defendant Nicole Paro did not challenge the facts as found by the trial court; she challenged only the trial court's legal conclusion that, given the particular facts of this case, the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop her vehicle. Police passed by Northeast Foreign Cars and noticed a Chevrolet pickup truck idling in the parking lot. The police officer thought this was suspicious, as the shop was not open for business, and he knew that this area had experienced previous break-ins, with the most recent being about nine months earlier. In fact, the police officer had personally investigated thefts from vehicles at Northeast Foreign Cars a year earlier in August 2009. As he started to turn around, the Chevy truck pulled out of the parking lot and headed east towards the police officer.The officer made a motor vehicle stop based solely on his suspicion of criminal activity at Northeast Foreign Cars. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and moved to suppress all evidence obtained through the traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: "We recognize that police officers are trained to be suspicious and it is their job to investigate suspicious situations. But we must also be mindful of our right to wander where we please, when we please, without fear of a police seizure." View "Vermont v. Paro" on Justia Law

Margaret Chickansoky (Mother) appealed a family court order that modified her parent-child contact rights. The parties originally agreed to share parental rights and responsibilities as part of a December 2005 divorce order. In 2009, the family court granted, in part, father’s motion to modify the original divorce order by awarding him sole legal parental rights and responsibilities. In July 2010, the family court granted father's second motion to modify based on his planned move to Missouri. The court awarded him legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities, with mother having summertime and vacation parent-child contact. The parties then got into a dispute over mother's unplanned or short-notice visits to Missouri. Following a hearing in July 2011, the court entered a twenty-five page order which clarified and modified parent-child contact. The court found that mother placed her needs ahead of the best interests of daughter, engaged in selfish and unreasonable behavior, has been patently unreasonable, has had "no insight whatsoever" as to why her behavior has caused daughter stress, and has failed to gain insight "as to the devastating impact of her behavior." The court also found that father attempted to relieve daughter's stress and that his "good basic parenting" has allowed daughter to have a "consistent, stable routine." Turning to the best-interests analysis, the court found that daughter's emotional development would be harmed if she spent the whole summer with mother. Thus, the court set forth a specific contact schedule and limited mother’s summertime contact to approximately one month. Mother appealed, arguing that: (1) the court exceeded its jurisdiction and violated her right to due process by issuing an order limiting her summertime contact with daughter insofar as she was never notified that summertime contact would be at issue; (2) father failed to make an adequate showing that there was a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in material circumstances to modify the previous custody order; and (3) the court failed to consider the best-interests factors in further limiting her contact with daughter. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented before the family court supported the court’s findings about mother’s unreasonableness and lack of insight, and father’s efforts to minimize daughter's stress, which in turn supported the conclusion that daughter's best interests would be served by limiting mother's summertime contact. View "Chickanosky v. Chickanosky" on Justia Law

Defendant Chase Tetrault and friends broke into a remote camp owned by A.C. (camp owner), damaging appliances and personal items. Defendant pled guilty to one count of unlawful trespass and the State requested restitution. At the restitution hearing, Defendant argued that the camp owner should be able to recover only the actual value of the damaged items at the time of the trespass, not their replacement cost. He also argued restitution could not be had for items that were not damaged, but "merely used." The trial judge disagreed, and awarded the camp owner the full amount of claimed damages. On appeal, Defendant raised the same two arguments, along with a new argument that restitution was not appropriate at all in this case, because the crime of unlawful trespass did not include an element of destruction of property. "While the value of a used microwave or toaster would be lower than the value of the identical appliances in new condition, Defendant’s suggestion that the replacement cost can be estimated by what the items might fetch at a yard sale is pettifoggery. . . .[a] victim of a home invasion should not have to visit local thrift stores or pore through the classifieds to determine the value of a used blender." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court was well within its discretion in awarding the camp owner restitution in the amount sought. View "Vermont v. Tetrault" on Justia Law