Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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.

Homeowners Kenneth and Larissa Trinder filed a declaratory judgment action to establish Defendant Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Companyâs (Company) obligation to defend or indemnify them regarding an encroachment of their septic system onto their neighborâs property. The Trinders purchased the land in question in 2005. In conjunction with the sale, they purchased title insurance from the Company to defend themselves against situations that might make their title unmarketable or where they would be forced to remove an existing structure on their property because it extends onto someone elseâs. The Trindersâ neighbor was the Mount Holly Community Historical Museum. The Museum called the Trinders to inform them that the Museum intended to expand its facility, and it wanted to reach a settlement with the Trinders that implicated the use of their septic system. The Trinders perceived the Museumâs call (and subsequent letter) as a threat to their title, and contacted their real estate closing attorney, who filed a claim to the Company on their behalf. The Company responded that the matter didnât impact their title. In September, 2008, the Trinders filed suit against the Company seeking to protect its right to have the septic system on the museumâs land, based on the âforced removal and marketabilityâ provisions of the title insurance. Following a bench trial, the court ordered judgment in favor of the Company. The court concluded a plain reading of the insurance policy showed there was no coverage under the forced removal clause, and that the marketability provision did not apply. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courtâs reasoning and affirmed its order on appeal.

In 2008, Plaintiff Timothy Price filed a pro se complaint in the Superior Court seeking access to the ballots and tally sheets from the November, 2006 election from the town clerk âbefore they are in any way tampered with or destroyed.â The Town of Fairlee moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the time to contest an election or ask for a recount had long since passed. The trial court reviewed Plaintiffâs complaint and concluded that Plaintiff was really requesting public records under the stateâs Public Records Act (PRA). The trial court noted that state law required the town clerk to retain all election materials for a 90-day period following an election, and authorized the clerk to destroy those materials after the 90 days passed. The court reasoned that destruction of the election materials had rendered the case moot since it could not grant the relief Plaintiff requested. Plaintiff then submitted a request to the Town for the election records pursuant to the PRA. This time the Town denied the request, saying the records were not subject to the PRA because the records had been destroyed. Taking the matter to court again, the Town moved to dismiss Plaintiffâs request as moot. This time, however, the trial court denied the Townâs motion to dismiss, holding that the records fell into an exception to the mootness doctrine, for actions âcapable of repetition, yet evading review.â The Town then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the election materials had to be âsecurely sealedâ if they hadnât already been destroyed, and were not available for public disclosure. The court granted the Townâs motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court was correct to entertain Plaintiffâs petition, but erred in ruling that the election records requested were exempt from disclosure under the PRA and erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Town. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower courtâs decision.

Defendant Michael Myers appealed a jury verdict that found him guilty of seven charges all resulting from a drunken altercation in which he drove his truck around the complaining witnessâ lawn, into the witnessâ home, and then fled the scene to be arrested by police a short time later. Defendant made a series of claims on appeal, alleging errors in the trial process and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial that supported his conviction. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented at trial, and found it sufficient to support the juryâs verdict convicting him of all charges brought against him.