Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Vermont National Telephone Company (VNT) appealed the state Commissioner of Taxes’ determination that, pursuant to Department of Taxes Regulation section 1.5833-1, the capital gain VNT earned from the 2013 sale of two Federal Communications Commission telecommunications licenses was subject to Vermont Tax. Additionally, VNT argued the penalty the Commissioner assessed for VNT's failure to report the 2013 sale violated 32 V.S.A. section 3202(b)(3) and the state and federal Constitutions. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Commissioner. View "Vermont National Telephone Company v. Department of Taxes" on Justia Law

In prior proceedings, the Vermont Supreme Court remanded this case involving Alpine Haven, a residential development in the Towns of Montgomery and Westfield, Vermont. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of the basis upon which the Alpine Haven Property Owners Association, Inc. (AHPOA) could bill plaintiffs for services that AHPOA provided. The trial court determined that those plaintiffs who owned “Chalet Lots” were required by their deeds to pay AHPOA a reasonable fee for road maintenance, snowplowing, and garbage removal; those plaintiffs who owned “Large Lots” were required by statute and equitable principles to contribute to AHPOA’s road maintenance costs. The court concluded plaintiffs failed to show any material factual dispute regarding the reasonableness or accuracy of AHPOA’s fees. It thus ordered plaintiffs to pay AHPOA’s annual assessments between 2011 and 2018. Plaintiffs challenged this decision on appeal. But finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Khan et al. v. v. Alpine Haven Property Owners' Assn., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Stephens appealed after he was convicted by jury of attempted sexual assault. On appeal, he argued: (1) the State’s evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the offense charged in the State’s information, and the trial court’s instruction permitted the jury to convict him for conduct not charged by the State; (2) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of an alleged prior sexual encounter between defendant and the complainant; (3) the court erred by allowing the State to present evidence of flight as consciousness of guilt and by not giving the jury a precautionary instruction on the limited probative value of that evidence; (4) the conviction must be vacated because the criminal case was not disposed of within the time frame set forth in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD); and (5) the court erred by not granting him a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Homeowner Edward Deptula appealed pro se a judgment in favor of plaintiff Alpine Haven Property Owners’ Association, Inc. (AHPOA) and third-party defendants Estate of Robert Gensburg and Gensburg & Greaves, PLLC (collectively Gensburg) in a long-running dispute over homeowner fees. AHPOA’s billing was based either on voluntary membership in AHPOA, or a homeowner’s obligation by deed and/or equity to pay for certain services that AHPOA provided. AHPOA owns and maintains a 4.5-mile road network within Alpine Haven, which almost all owners need to access their properties. AHPOA is also responsible for the streetlights, snowplowing, and garbage disposal within Alpine Haven. Deptula purchased a chalet lot in 1972. He has repeatedly refused to pay AHPOA’s annual assessments and those of AHPOA’s predecessor-in-interest and assignor, Leisure Properties. This has led to numerous collection actions. On appeal of this latest challenge to the assessments, Deptula raised numerous arguments, but finding no reversible error in the judgment in favor of AHPOA, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Alpine Haven Property Owners' Assn, Inc. v. Deptula" on Justia Law

During the certificate of need (CON) application process, applicant ACTD, LLC (operator of the Green Mountain Surgery Center (GMSC), a for-profit multi-specialty ambulatory surgery center), indicated that it initially planned to offer surgical services in five identified specialties. After the CON was issued, applicant notified the Board that in addition to these five specialties, it planned to offer plastic surgery and ophthalmology procedures. The Board chose to review these changes and, after hearing, issued a decision clarifying that the original CON was limited in scope to the five specialties applicant had identified in its application, and that the proposed addition of plastic surgery and ophthalmology procedures was a nonmaterial change to the project. The Board concluded that applicant had demonstrated a need for greater access to plastic surgery and ophthalmology procedures currently performed in a hospital setting and approved the addition of these services. However, it rejected applicant’s proposal to offer ophthalmology procedures already available at another ambulatory surgery center nearby. The Board also extended applicant’s implementation reporting period for two additional years. Applicant argued on appeal of the Board's decision that the Board improperly restricted the scope of the CON and lacked the power to extend the reporting requirement. Finding that the Board acted within its authority, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "In re ACTD LLC, d/b/a The Green Mountain Surgery Center" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to modify the parties’ parenting schedule. The parties were married in 2012. Plaintiff gave birth to their child in 2015, and defendant adopted the child through a second-parent adoption that was final in October 2016. The parties ended their sexual relationship in January 2017, but continued to live together and act as co-parents. In November 2017, the parties signed a “Marital Settlement Agreement” with the help of an application called “Wevorce.” In negotiating the agreement, they did not consult with lawyers or third parties, except for one half-hour consultation with “a lawyer on Church Street.” At the same time, they signed a court form titled “Agreement on Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Parent Child Contact and Provisions Relating to Children.” Plaintiff filed for divorce in December 2017, and submitted the parties’ stipulation to waive final hearing. The parties were still living together and sharing in the child’s care when they commenced the divorce action. The divorce was finalized in July 2018 at an uncontested hearing before the family division. Both parties represented themselves. At the time and following the divorce, they continued to live in the same house and to share care of the child. In November 2018, plaintiff moved out and became reluctant to allow defendant time with the child. Plaintiff had not discussed this “total move” with defendant beforehand. In January 2019, defendant filed a motion to modify parent-child contact on the ground that “[t]here has been a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances in that the parent and child are no longer all living in the same household and there is no schedule for any parent child contact for Defendant.” Plaintiff opposed the motion to modify. When the request was granted, Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) holding a hearing on the motion to modify when a prior judge had determined that the case should proceed as a motion for relief from judgment; (2) finding that there was a real and unanticipated change in circumstances; and (3) assessing the best interests of the child. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Fabiano v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Father appealed a family division order terminating his parental rights to his son C.B., born in August 2016. The State filed a petition alleging that C.B. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) in October 2017 based on allegations that father had repeatedly engaged in domestic violence and mother continued to allow father to be around her and C.B. despite repeated abuse and court orders barring contact. A January 2018 order gave father the right to supervised parent-child contact, but he did not follow through and no visits took place. Father had a lengthy criminal history including a conviction for attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At the time of the final hearing, he had several charges still pending. Father required safe housing, employment, therapy, parenting classes, and time to develop a relationship with C.B. Given father’s lack of progress towards achieving case-plan goals, the trial court found there was no possibility he could safely parent C.B. in a time reasonable for C.B., given C.B.’s need for permanency, thus termination of his rights was granted. Father alleged on appeal that the court committed several errors related to paternal grandmother’s requests for a guardianship of C.B. in the probate division, and for visitation with C.B. in the family division. Father also claimed the court deprived him of standing at the merits stage, failed to assign him counsel, and erred in not directing a suitability assessment of paternal grandmother at the initial temporary-care hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re C.B., Juvenile" on Justia Law

Defendant Jacob Rillo appealed his conviction for selling or dispensing a regulated drug (fentanyl) with death resulting, arguing that his guilty plea lacked a factual basis. After review of the trial court record, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed and reverse defendant’s conviction and sentence for that count. The matter was remanded to the trial court for resentencing on the remaining counts. View "Vermont v. Rillo" on Justia Law

Defendant, MontChilly, Inc., appealed a trial court’s order requiring it to remove portions of a fence that interfered with plaintiff VTRE Investments, LLC's easement for ingress and egress. MontChilly also contended the trial court improperly failed to issue a ruling on its counterclaim for trespass against plaintiff for parking on MontChilly’s property without any legal right to do so. On cross-appeal, plaintiff challenged the court’s holding that it was bound by a reciprocal easement allowing a drainpipe over its property on the ground that its predecessor in interest did not sign the instrument creating the easement. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order requiring MontChilly to remove portions of its fence, and remanded for the court to enter judgment on MontChilly’s trespass counterclaim. With respect to VTRE’s cross-appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s judgment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "VTRE Investments, LLC v. MontChilly, Inc." on Justia Law

Todd and Melissa Muller appealed a superior court decision granting summary judgment to their insurer, Progressive Northern Insurance Company. The Mullers challenged the court’s conclusions on how the setoff provision of their insurance policy should have been applied when there were multiple claimants. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that, construing the insurance policy as a whole, the setoff provision is unambiguous: It clearly provided that Progressive was entitled to reduce “all sums . . . paid” regardless of the number of claims made. View "Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Muller" on Justia Law