Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vacate the family court’s order terminating his parental rights to son C.L.S. In his motion, father argued the termination order had to be set aside under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The family court determined that it lacked jurisdiction under 33 V.S.A. 5103(d) because father filed the motion after C.L.S. was adopted, and dismissed the motion. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the family court correctly interpreted section 5103(d), and that its application of the statute did not deprive father of his rights to due process or equal protection. View "In re C.L.S., Juvenile" on Justia Law

Juvenile S.R. appealed a family division order granting the Department for Children and Families' (DCF) request to place him in a secure out-of-state psychiatric residential treatment facility pursuant to 33 V.S.A. 5926. In November 2019, mother stipulated that S.R. was CHINS. The stipulated merits order indicated that S.R. and mother were homeless, mother needed to undergo a medical procedure that would preclude her from caring for S.R., and S.R. had mental health and behavioral needs that needed continued treatment. The stipulated order included a statement that S.R. did not meet criteria for voluntary or involuntary mental health admission. Mother stipulated that she was unable to meet S.R.’s needs for stability, housing, and mental and behavioral health services. The COVID-19 pandemic struck, delaying court hearings. Over the following months, S.R. moved through a series of ten to twelve placements. The constant changes in placement prevented S.R. from establishing any therapeutic connections with service providers and also inhibited S.R.’s educational progress. S.R. was charged with delinquency several times after he reportedly became abusive during three of his placements. DCF, Mother and S.R.'s guardian ad litem eventually agreed on a placement in Harbor Point, Virginia. S.R. himself objected to placement at Harbor Point, and to any other placement out-of-state, unless a program could be found in New York, where his mother was living at the time of the hearing. The court ultimately granted DCF’s motion for out-of-state placement, finding that there were no equivalent facilities in Vermont, and that placement at Harbor Point was in S.R.’s best interest. On appeal, S.R. argued the court erred in granting the motion for out-of-state placement in the absence of any psychiatric or psychological evaluation supporting a conclusion that psychiatric residential treatment was necessary for him. He contended his placement was akin to the involuntary commitment of an adult, and that involuntary commitment decisions had to be supported by full psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded the order was not supported by sufficient evidence, and reversed. "While we have no doubt that everyone involved in the proceeding below was concerned with S.R.’s best interest and acted in good faith, and it may be that DCF’s position is ultimately adequately supported, the record simply does not contain the sort of expert evidence required to support long-term placement in a locked psychiatric residential treatment facility over S.R.’s objection." View "In re S.R., Juvenile" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Johnathan Billewicz, Michael Billewicz, J & M Investment Trust, and Lillian Billewicz appealed a the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Town of Fair Haven. Plaintiffs sought damages and a declaratory judgment that deeds purporting to convey their properties to the Town following a tax sale were void. The court found their action was foreclosed by the one-year statute of limitations at 32 V.S.A. 5294(4) for claims challenging the validity of a tax collector’s acts. Plaintiffs argued this was error because their claims were instead subject to the three-year statute of limitations for actions for the recovery of land sold at a tax sale under 32 V.S.A. 5263. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Billewicz, et al. v. Town of Fair Haven" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Hale appealed a trial court decision denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on his charge of possessing brass knuckles with the intent to use them. He argued that although he possessed brass knuckles, the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of his intent to use them. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Hale" on Justia Law

Plaintiff William Pettersen appealed a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment to his former law firm, defendant Monaghan Safar Ducham PLLC. He argued that sufficient evidence existed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims for promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, thus contending that summary judgment was inappropriate. After review of the trial court record, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the trial court properly granted summary judgment, and affirmed. View "Pettersen v. Monaghan Safar Ducham PLLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Orion Stone appealed a trial court’s order extending a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order against him. He argued the plain language of 15 V.S.A. 1103(e) required plaintiff Meghan Forrett to seek her extension before the initial order expired, and because she failed to do so, the court lacked jurisdiction over her request. Defendant maintained that plaintiff’s belated request could not be considered “excusable neglect” under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Defendant further argued the trial court was required and failed to make findings that he abused plaintiff and that there was a danger of further abuse. The Vermont Supreme Court construed section 1103(e) to allow plaintiff’s filing here; however, the Supreme Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision to extend the RFA order. Because the Court concluded that the hearing did not provide plaintiff a sufficient opportunity to present relevant evidence, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Forrett v. Stone" on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Bourgoin was convicted by jury on five counts of second-degree murder, one count of grossly negligent operation, and one count of operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent. The charges stemmed from a tragic incident during which defendant drove the wrong way on the interstate and crashed into a car, killing five teenagers, before fleeing the scene in a police cruiser, returning to the scene shortly thereafter by again driving the wrong way on the interstate, and crashing into the wreckage. Defendant, who asserted insanity and diminished-capacity defenses at trial, argued he was entitled to reversal of his murder convictions because the State failed to prove the intent element of second-degree murder and the trial court erred in admitting undisclosed testimony and in instructing the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed defendant's convictions. View "Vermont v. Bourgoin" on Justia Law

Defendant Jospeh Blanchard was convicted by jury for criminal threatening and impeding a public officer. The charges arose after a dark and rainy night in April 2018, when a police officer pulled defendant's car over with a burned-out passenger-side headlight. Defendant asked the officer why he was pulled over, and whether he was suspected of a crime. After some back and forth in which defendant asserted that there was no reason to stop him, defendant gave the officer his license, insurance and car registration papers. Upon reviewing the registration and insurance documents, the officer observed both were out-of-date, with the registration expiring in 2016. Defendant told the officer he did not have to have registration or insurance and that it was his constitutional right to travel, and he asked to speak with the officer's supervisor. Upon the supervisor's arrival, and after speaking with defendant for approximately thirty-seven minutes, both officers informed defendant they were going to ground his vehicle in the parking lot because of his defective equipment and outdated registration and insurance. Defendant resisted, stating he would defend himself, and claimed he had an AR-15 rifle in the car. The supervisor testified defendant did not appear to be joking and that he believed he was in jeopardy. After several more minutes of the supervisor telling defendant that he could not drive the car and defendant responding that he could and that he had not committed a crime, defendant attempted to open the driver’s-side door to his car. The supervisor pushed the door closed before defendant could get back in. In this time, two other officers arrived at the scene. Defendant again attempted to open the door; the supervisor pushed the door shut and placed defendant under arrest for impeding an officer. On appeal, defendant argued insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction, and that the jury instructions in impeding an officer were impermissibly vague and overbroad and failed to guarantee unanimity. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed defendant's conviction. View "Vermont v. Blanchard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff David Demarest filed suit against the Town of Underhill, seeking a declaration that he had a right of vehicle access over a Town trail, and appealing the Selectboard’s decision denying his request for highway access to a proposed new subdivision on his property. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town, concluding that plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief was barred by claim preclusion and that the Town acted within its discretion in denying the permit. On appeal, plaintiff argued the trial court erred in applying claim preclusion, and that the Town exceeded its authority under the statute in denying his request for access. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed judgment. View "Demarest v. Town of Underhill" on Justia Law

Daughter Deborah George appealed the civil division’s determination that her father, decedent Theodore George, was the sole owner of a vehicle at the time of his death and that the vehicle was properly included in his estate. Decedent purchased the vehicle at issue, a 1979 Cadillac Eldorado, in 1992. The Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a Certificate of Title to decedent in 1994 in his name only. The copy of the title in the record contained no assignment of ownership to daughter. In 2006, decedent submitted a Vermont Registration, Tax, and Title Application to the DMV. Decedent’s name was listed in the space provided for the owner, and daughter’s name was listed in the adjacent space provided for a co-owner. Next to daughter’s name, a handwritten annotation said, “add co-owner.” The form directed applicants to select rights of survivorship if more than one owner was listed and provides that “if no box is checked joint tenants will be selected.” Decedent made no indication. At the bottom of the form, decedent signed the application; the line for the co-owner’s signature was left blank. No bill of sale accompanied the 2006 Registration Application. The DMV issued registration certificates naming both decedent and daughter for 2012-2013, 2014-2015, and 2017-2018. On appeal of the civil division's determination, daughter argued that decedent’s act in changing the registration to reflect joint ownership effectively transferred an interest in the vehicle to her. Alternatively, she argued that decedent’s act demonstrated his intent to make a gift of joint ownership. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded there was insufficient evidence that decedent transferred an interest in the vehicle to daughter under either theory and affirmed. View "In re Estate of Theodore George" on Justia Law