Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A hospital submitted its proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year, requesting a 6.1% increase in net patient revenue (NPR) and a 2.8% increase in commercial negotiated rates. The hospital justified its request by citing increased patient volume and efforts to reduce wait times. The Green Mountain Care Board, which regulates hospital budgets in Vermont, had previously issued guidance setting a 3.5% benchmark for NPR growth and a 3.4% benchmark for commercial rate increases, requiring hospitals to justify any requests above these benchmarks.After reviewing the hospital’s proposal, the Green Mountain Care Board approved a 5.0% NPR increase—higher than the benchmark but lower than requested—citing the hospital’s strong financial health and the need to balance access to care with cost containment. The Board also approved the requested 2.8% commercial rate increase but included a footnote reducing this increase to 1.2% due to a prior budget overage, referencing a separate budget-enforcement order. The hospital appealed the Board’s decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the Board’s NPR decision was arbitrary and that the reduction in the commercial rate increase violated procedural requirements under the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act (VAPA).The Vermont Supreme Court held that the Board had adequately explained its decision to approve a 5.0% NPR increase and acted within its discretion, given the statutory mandate to balance cost control and access to care. However, the Court struck the footnote reducing the commercial rate increase to 1.2%, because the underlying budget-enforcement order had been reversed by the Vermont Superior Court for failure to follow VAPA procedures and was no longer valid. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the Board’s decision. View "In re Rutland Regional Medical Center Fiscal Year 2025" on Justia Law

A property owner challenged the tax assessment of its facility in Salisbury, Vermont, for the 2023-2024 tax year. After a grievance hearing attended by both the property owner and its attorney, the town listers denied the grievance and mailed the decision by certified mail to the property owner’s address of record. The property owner received the notice twelve days before the deadline to appeal but did not forward it to its attorney until after the appeal period had expired. The attorney then filed an appeal to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA), which was rejected as untimely.The property owner appealed to the Vermont Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division, arguing that the town violated its procedural due process rights by failing to send notice of the listers’ decision to both the property owner and its attorney. The Superior Court allowed the property owner to amend its complaint and ultimately granted summary judgment in its favor, relying on Perry v. Department of Employment & Training, which required notice to both a claimant and their attorney in the context of unemployment benefits. The court ordered the BCA to hear the untimely appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, in the context of property tax grievances, procedural due process does not require notice to be mailed to both the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s counsel. The Court distinguished Perry as limited to unemployment-benefit proceedings and found that the statutory scheme for property tax appeals only requires notice to the taxpayer. Because the property owner received actual notice and had sufficient time to appeal, the Court concluded that due process was satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and instructed that summary judgment be entered for the Town of Salisbury. View "Salisbury AD 1, LLC v. Town of Salisbury" on Justia Law

A woman and her former husband divorced in 2011, entering into a detailed stipulation that was incorporated into a final divorce order by the Vermont family division. The order awarded her sole legal parental rights for their three minor children and required the husband to pay spousal maintenance for a set period. It also required him to maintain a $400,000 life insurance policy naming her as the sole beneficiary for at least fifteen years or until his maintenance obligation was paid in full, whichever was later. After remarrying, the husband obtained new life insurance policies naming his new wife as beneficiary and assigned part of one policy to a lender as collateral. Upon his death, the ex-wife discovered she was not a beneficiary on these policies and sued, seeking the insurance proceeds based on the divorce order.The Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Civil Division, denied the ex-wife’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings to the defendants. The court found that Vermont law prohibited courts from ordering postmortem spousal maintenance or requiring life insurance to secure such maintenance, and concluded the life-insurance provision in the divorce order was invalid and unenforceable. The court ordered the insurance proceeds to be distributed to the new wife and the lender, and granted interpleader relief to one insurer.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Vermont law recognizes an equitable cause of action to recover life insurance proceeds based on a divorce order, and that parties may agree to secure maintenance with life insurance, even if the court could not impose such a requirement unilaterally. The Court affirmed the interpleader relief but reversed the remainder of the judgment, remanding for further proceedings to determine the ex-wife’s equitable entitlement to the insurance proceeds and the priority of competing claims. View "diMonda v. Lincoln National Corp." on Justia Law

Costco sought to operate a gas station adjacent to its retail store in Colchester, Vermont, near a busy highway interchange. The company obtained both municipal and Act 250 permits, which included conditions requiring traffic mitigation measures—specifically, improvements at a nearby intersection (the MVD Improvements) or, alternatively, implementation of modified traffic signal timings if a larger state highway project (the DDI Project) was not yet under construction. Two neighboring businesses, who also operated gas stations nearby, actively participated in the permitting process and subsequent litigation, arguing that Costco’s gas station would exacerbate traffic congestion and that Costco should not be allowed to operate the station at full-time hours until the DDI Project was complete.After initial permits were issued, the neighbors appealed to the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, which upheld the permits with the mitigation conditions. The neighbors then appealed the Act 250 permit to the Vermont Supreme Court, which affirmed the sufficiency of the mitigation measures. As the DDI Project faced delays, Costco sought and received permit amendments allowing limited-hours operation of the gas station, subject to the same traffic mitigation conditions. The neighbors continued to challenge these amendments and argued that the Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) should have been joined as a co-applicant, and that Costco needed further permit amendments to operate at full-time hours.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Environmental Division had jurisdiction to consider whether Costco could operate the gas station at full-time hours. The Court concluded that Costco was not required to seek further amendments to its Act 250 or municipal permits before commencing full-time operation, as the permit conditions were satisfied either by the commencement of the DDI Project or by implementation of the signal timing modifications. The Court affirmed the Environmental Division’s decision and found the neighbors’ remaining arguments moot. View "In re Costco Wholesale Administrative Decision" on Justia Law

In September 2018, six-year-old L.F. made statements to her foster mother about inappropriate touching by her stepfather, Andy LaGore. These statements were recorded and reported to the Department for Children and Families. L.F. later reiterated these allegations during an interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center, identifying LaGore as the perpetrator. LaGore was subsequently charged and convicted of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child.During pretrial motions, LaGore sought to introduce evidence of a 2016 incident where L.F. had made similar allegations against her biological father, Jordan. The trial court denied this motion, ruling that the 2016 statements were not relevant and did not demonstrate that L.F. was confused about the identity of the perpetrator in the 2018 incident. The court found no evidence that L.F.’s statements about her biological father were false or that she was confusing the two men.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the trial court’s decision. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 2016 statements, as they were not relevant to the 2018 allegations. The court emphasized that the exclusion of irrelevant evidence does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed LaGore’s conviction, finding that the trial court acted within its discretion and that LaGore’s constitutional rights were not violated. View "State v. LaGore" on Justia Law

Janet Cote owns a property that was previously a gas station site. After discovering significant petroleum contamination in the soil, she applied for and received reimbursement from the Petroleum Cleanup Fund (PCF). The Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) later denied further reimbursement for costs associated with a licensed engineer and additional items on Cote’s property. The Environmental Division affirmed the ANR’s decision in part and reversed in part. Cote appealed the denied reimbursements.The Environmental Division held a two-day hearing and concluded that the ANR must reimburse Cote for electrical work, concrete work, and wastewater work, as these were pre-approved and the ANR’s subsequent denial was unreasonable. However, the court upheld the ANR’s denial of costs for a licensed engineer and other punch list items, finding the ANR’s decision reasonable and consistent with the law.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the ANR’s denial of reimbursement for the licensed engineer and punch list items was reasonable. The court found the Environmental Division’s analysis lacking, as it did not adequately explain why the ANR’s denial was reasonable or provide sufficient findings of fact. The court noted that the Environmental Division merely restated the ANR’s conclusory arguments without proper analysis.The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the Environmental Division to make adequate factual findings and any additional conclusions necessary on the disputed reimbursement claims. The court emphasized the need for clear reasoning and analysis to support the decision. View "In re Cote/Maquam Shore Market" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Julio Davila, was released on furlough in October 2021 following a 2014 conviction. In April 2022, he absconded from furlough, leading the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) to issue a "Return on Mittimus Request" and an arrest warrant. In August 2022, Davila was arrested in Massachusetts for driving with a suspended license and cocaine trafficking. He was held without bail on both the Vermont warrant and Massachusetts charges. In September 2022, Davila waived extradition to Vermont but remained incarcerated in Massachusetts until December 2023, when he was released on his own recognizance and transported to Vermont.Davila filed a grievance with the Vermont DOC, requesting credit towards his Vermont sentence for the time spent incarcerated in Massachusetts. The DOC denied his request, stating he was not under their supervision. Davila then filed a complaint in the Washington Civil Division, seeking a writ of mandamus to credit his Vermont sentence from September 2022 onwards. The court granted summary judgment to the DOC, concluding Davila was not entitled to credit for time served in Massachusetts.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court held that under 28 V.S.A. § 808e(c), Davila was not entitled to sentence credit while a warrant was outstanding. The court also held that 13 V.S.A. § 7031(c) did not apply because Davila was not "awaiting transportation" to Vermont while incarcerated in Massachusetts. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding Davila was not entitled to credit for the 490 days spent in Massachusetts. View "Davila v. Deml" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Gravel & Shea PC sued defendant Costello, Valente & Gentry, P.C., claiming unjust enrichment for receiving attorney’s fees without compensating plaintiff for work done to procure a settlement. The dispute arose from lawsuits involving an employee’s injury at work and his employer’s worker’s compensation insurance. Plaintiff represented the employer in a lawsuit against its insurer, Cornerstone Risk Management, LLC, while defendant represented the employee in a personal-injury lawsuit against the employer. The employee settled with Lloyd’s of London, Cornerstone’s professional-liability insurer, and defendant received its contingency fee from the settlement proceeds.The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment to plaintiff, concluding that under the common-fund doctrine, equities required defendant to contribute to plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. The court found that plaintiff’s efforts in the Cornerstone action led to the settlement from which defendant received its fees. The court also held a bench trial on damages and awarded damages to plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly expanded the common-fund doctrine and that the facts did not support a claim of unjust enrichment.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the common-fund doctrine did not apply because there was no common fund created by plaintiff’s efforts that benefitted both parties. The court emphasized that the common-fund doctrine is limited to cases where a party’s efforts create a fund that benefits others who did not contribute to the litigation costs. The court remanded the case for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that plaintiff could not maintain an unjust-enrichment claim under the circumstances. View "WWSAF Special Partners Group, LLC (Series D) v. Costello, Valente & Gentry, P.C." on Justia Law

Petitioner James Fredrick filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his confinement in Vermont on a governor’s warrant pending extradition to New York for a second-degree murder charge. The superior court denied the petition, concluding that the extradition process requirements were met. On appeal, Fredrick argued that the governor’s warrant and New York’s extradition application lacked an authenticated copy of the indictment as required by Vermont law.The Caledonia Superior Court, Civil Division, held a hearing and denied Fredrick’s request, reasoning that the governor’s warrant was prima facie evidence that the extradition requirements were satisfied. The court found that the documents showed Fredrick was lawfully charged by indictment. Fredrick appealed the decision on January 9, 2025.During the appeal, Governor Scott recalled the original governor’s warrant and issued a new one, including a copy of the indictment signed by the grand jury foreperson. Fredrick filed another habeas corpus petition challenging the new warrant, which was also denied, and an appeal is pending.The Vermont Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that the original governor’s warrant was withdrawn and Fredrick’s confinement is now based on a new warrant. The court found no applicable exceptions to mootness, as Fredrick did not demonstrate that the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review, nor did he show negative collateral consequences. The court concluded that there was no longer an actual controversy, and the appeal was dismissed. View "In re James Fredrick" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Vermont’s Auditor of Accounts and the Attorney General. The Auditor sued the Attorney General, alleging non-compliance with the statutory obligation to provide legal advice. The Auditor sought a declaratory judgment affirming his right to retain counsel to sue the Attorney General and mandamus to compel the Attorney General to answer specific legal questions. The trial court dismissed the Auditor’s claims and denied his request for attorneys’ fees.The dispute arose from the Auditor’s audit of a Burlington tax increment financing (TIF) district. The Auditor encountered a perceived gap in TIF statutes and sought advice from the Attorney General, who answered one question but directed the Auditor to other entities for the remaining questions. The Auditor claimed this was a violation of the Attorney General’s duty under 3 V.S.A. § 159 and threatened to sue. The Attorney General responded, explaining her statutory obligations and asserting that the Auditor lacked authority to sue.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Auditor’s claims for mandamus and declaratory judgment related to the specific TIF questions, concluding that the Attorney General had provided legal advice as required by 3 V.S.A. § 159. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the broader declaratory judgment claim, finding no live controversy as the Attorney General had provided legal advice and there was no policy of refusing to do so.However, the court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the Auditor’s claim for declaratory judgment regarding his right to retain counsel and sue for mandamus. The court held that the Auditor has implied statutory authorization to seek mandamus to enforce the Attorney General’s duty under 3 V.S.A. § 159. The court also affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees, finding Rule 54 inapplicable for the relief sought by the Auditor. View "Office of the Auditor of Accounts v. Office of the Attorney General" on Justia Law