Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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 ProSelect Insurance Company filed this declaratory relief action to determine its duty to indemnify its insured in a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice and sexual assault. The trial court construed a policy exclusion to bar coverage and entered judgment in favor of ProSelect. Plaintiff Robyn Levy appealed that judgment, asserting that: (1) the malpractice claims are covered under the concurrent causation doctrine; and (2) the policy exclusion as interpreted by the trial court contravenes public policy. Plaintiff alleged she began psychiatric counseling with Defendant's insured, Dr. Peter McKenna from 2003-2005. In that time, Plaintiff alleged Dr. McKenna negligently failed to properly diagnose her psychological disorder, prescribed harmful medications, encouraged her to pursue "unhealthy lifestyle choices," failed to refer her to a community-based mental health program, and engaged in treatment "at variance with accepted professional protocols." In a separate count, Levy alleged that, "[i]n the course of . . . treatment," Dr. McKenna had committed sexual assault and battery. ProSelect filed suit seeking a declaration that its professional liability policy excluded coverage of Plaintiff's suit. The trial court reasoned that the underlying action was indisputably a "suit" that contains an allegation of sexual assault. Therefore, by its plain terms the policy barred coverage of the complaint in its entirety, "[e]ven assuming" that the medical malpractice count was—as Plaintiff claimed—"totally unrelated" to the sexual assault and therefore otherwise covered. The trial court thus granted ProSelect’s motion and entered judgment in its favor. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Plaintiff's malpractice and assault claims could not be viewed as separate or independent causes, and coverage can not be grounded on the "concurrent causation doctrine." Furthermore, without a basis in the concurrent causation doctrine, there was no violation of public policy Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "ProSelect Insurance Co. v. Levy" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case raised the question of the meaning of "expungement" within the Vermont judicial system. Defendant F.M. sought the removal of references to a dismissed count from docket entries regarding his case. In December 2008, Defendant was charged with four counts. In June 2009, under a plea agreement with the State, Defendant pled guilty to Count 2, reckless endangerment; the State dismissed the other three counts; and Defendant received a deferred sentence and the promise that Count 2 would be dismissed if Defendant successfully completed mental health court proceedings. In February 2010, the court, upon request, Recognized that Defendant had successfully completed mental health court requirements and, per the plea agreement, dismissed Count 2 and ordered expungement of the record pursuant to 13 V.S.A. 7041(e). Following this order, however, the docket sheet for Defendant’s case still referred to Count 2, labeling it "expunged" in the list of disputes and referring in the descriptive docket entries to "disputes 1-4." The following month, Defendant moved to correct the clerical record to remove all references in the docket entries to the expunged count. The court denied the motion "[i]n light of the problems outlined in the emails" among count clerks, administrators, and information services personnel describing the complexities involved in deleting docket entries from the electronic system. Defendant challenges the trial court’s refusal to enforce its expungement order because of the difficulty of compliance, noting that the docket entries concerning his case continue to refer to "disputes 1-4," rather than "disputes 1, 3-4," a direct violation of the expungement required by statute. The State filed a letter with the Court explaining its decision not to file a brief "given that the sole issue concerns how the judiciary carries out expungements rather than whether or not the record in this particular case should be expunged." Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and ordered the expungement: "[t]he difficulties inherent in deleting docket entries from our current docket entry system-while real-do not justify a violation of the statute on the part of the judiciary." View "Vermont v. F.M." on Justia Law

Defendant Tina Marie Lamonda entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a narcotic drug. She challenged the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress and dismiss. Defendant was charged following a traffic stop. She moved to suppress the evidence against her, arguing that there were no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search of her purse. Following a hearing, the court denied her motion. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling. View "Vermont v. Lamonda" on Justia Law

Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC appealed a trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. AT&T claimed the trial court erred by ruling that AT&T had not been assigned Plaintiff Pike Porter’s cell phone contract before sending him unsolicited text messages and erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue. AT&T also argued that even if Plaintiff's claims arose before AT&T purchased his contract, the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that AT&T cannot enforce the binding arbitration agreement in Plaintiff's original cell phone contract. The court also noted that the arbitration agreement could not bind Plaintiff "with regard to events between him and AT&T that took place at a time when his only contract was with Unicel, not AT&T." AT&T highlighted four pieces of evidence it submitted along with its motion to amend and reconsider as "undisputed" proof that it purchased Plaintiff's contract in December 2008. Upon review of AT&T's evidence, the Supreme Court concluded the document did not establish that Plaintiff's contract was one of the 100,000 to 150,000 contracts sold, nor did it suggest that "certain Unicel assets" included all of the wireless contracts Unicel held in Vermont. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of Plaintiff. View "Porter v. AT&T Mobility, LLC" 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

Plaintiffs Thomas and Margaret McGoff appealed a superior court order that granted Defendant Acadia Insurance Company summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ underinsured motorists (UIM) claim arising from an automobile accident in which Thomas McGoff was injured. Thomas McGoff was employed by A.R. Sandri, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation that operates gas stations and other businesses in New England and New York. At the time of the accident that led to the instant lawsuit, Sandri had supplied McGoff with a company car which he kept at his Barre, Vermont home. The Plymouth was owned by Sandri, registered in Massachusetts, and insured by Acadia. Sandri had two fleet insurance policies with Acadia—one for vehicles registered in Massachusetts and one for vehicles registered in other states. The Plymouth was covered by the policy issued for vehicles registered in Massachusetts. The policy listed the vehicles as being garaged in Massachusetts, apparently based on Sandri’s representation. McGoff made a claim against the other driver and a claim for additional UIM coverage against Acadia. Acadia denied coverage because the policy’s UIM coverage was less than the alleged tortfeasor’s liability coverage. Based on this, Acadia moved for summary judgment. In May 2010, the court granted Acadia’s motion, ruling that Vermont’s uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) insurance requirements do not apply to the Acadia fleet policy because the policy was not "delivered or issued for delivery in this state." Without setting forth "[a] statement of the issues presented for review," Plaintiffs generally claimed on appeal that the superior court erred by granting Acadia summary judgment. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued the court erred in ruling that Vermont’s UIM requirements do not apply to the instant policy on grounds that the policy was not delivered or issued for delivery in Vermont. Because the Plymouth was garaged in Vermont rather than in Massachusetts (as indicated in the Acadia policy), they maintained the vehicle should have been registered in Vermont rather than Massachusetts and the Vermont UIM requirements should apply. Upon review of the parties briefs and the trial record, the Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs' position was contrary to the plain language of the UIM statute as well as the nearly unanimous relevant case law, and therefore the Court decline to adopt it under the present circumstances. The Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer. View "McGoff v. Acadia Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Applicants Howard Smith and Morrill House, LCC appealed a decision of the Superior Court’s Environmental Division that denied their request for a variance to subdivide property located in the Town of Fair Haven, Vermont. They contended on appeal that their application should have been deemed approved because the town zoning board of adjustment failed to issue its decision denying the application within the deadline prescribed by the relevant statute and local zoning ordinance. The Supreme Court found in its review of the applicable legal authority that "[it] held that a decision is rendered so as to avoid the deemed approval language as long as it is 'finally made before the expiration of the forty-five day period, regardless of when, or if, the decision is reduced to writing.' … The board here made a decision within the prescribed period but failed to notify Applicants within that period and the bases for the decision. Following our previous case law, we will strictly construe the deemed approval remedy to apply only when the decision was not made within the prescribed period, which was not the case here." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Division's decision. View "In re Appeal of Morrill House, LLC and Smith Variance" on Justia Law

Husband-Petitioner John Towslee appealed a post-divorce ruling by the family court. The parties were divorced in 1997. By stipulation, which was incorporated into the final divorce order, Wife-Respondent Cathleen Callanan was awarded the marital home until the parties' youngest child turned eighteen. Wife was responsible for all costs and expenses associated with the home, including "the current mortgage," of which there were two, totaling $87,500, a value near the property's purchase price. The stipulation provided that the proceeds from the sale of the property would be divided equally after deducting the usual and customary expenses associated with the sale of the property, the remaining balance of the current mortgage, the cost of the appraisal, and "the cost of all capital improvements and capital contributions (mortgage)." At issue was the "capital contributions": when Wife tried to sell the property in 2008, the bank required Petitioner to sign off on the sale. He refused, claiming that his Wife owed him money under the terms of the divorce decree. The dispute turned on whether she was entitled to deduct not only the principal component of the mortgage payments she made, but also the interest component of those payments. Following a hearing, the court found the phrase "capital contributions (mortgage)" ambiguous, and it examined extrinsic evidence to discern the parties' intent. After hearing testimony from husband's attorney, who drafted the language in question, as well as from wife, the court concluded that the more reasonable interpretation, given the use of the word "mortgage," was that Wife could deduct the entirety of the payments made on the debt secured by the original two mortgages. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the family court's construction of the decree "was not unfair or unreasonable." As such, the Court affirmed the family court's decision. View "Towslee v. Callanan" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Weisler and Raymond King contended the trial court erred in denying their respective motions to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle in which they were passengers. On a fall 2009 evening, a Vermont state trooper stopped a vehicle containing Defendants and driver Timothy Stone. The officer observed what he believed to be "marijuana flakes" on Weisler's shirt. The officer ordered Stone out of the vehicle, and as Stone exited, Weisler reached under the seat. The officer observed what appeared to be a cellophane bag of cocaine. The officer ordered everyone out of the car while he performed a safety-sweep of the vehicle. The trial court found that the vehicle's owner voluntarily consented to the search. Defendants contended: (1) the finding of voluntariness must be reviewed de novo on appeal; (2) the consent to search was not voluntary; and (3) the consent was tainted by the owner's unlawful de facto arrest. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the finding of voluntariness is subject to de novo review, but concluded that the consent was neither involuntary nor tainted. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Vermont v. Weisler" on Justia Law