Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Katherine Hall appealed an Environmental Division decision granting summary judgment to Chittenden Resorts, LLC and RMT Associates, d/b/a Mountain Top Inn & Resort (the Resort). The Environmental Division concluded the Resort did not need an amended Act 250 permit to run a rental program where, pursuant to a contractual agreement, the Resort rented out private homes near the Resort. On appeal, Hall argued that the Environmental Division erred in determining that the Resort did not need an amended Act 250 permit. Specifically, she argued the Resort needed an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program were a collective "person." Alternatively, she argued the Resort exercised "control" over the rental homes within the meaning of section 6001(3)(A)(i). The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed with Hall's characterization of the Resort and home owners as a collective "person." Further, the Court found the Resort did not control the rented homes contemplated by section 6001(3)(i). Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division's judgment. View "In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Hall, Appellant)" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Harwood appealed after a trial court concluded he violated one of the conditions of his probation. In 2017, defendant was charged by information with one count of aggravated domestic assault, and two counts of disturbing the peace by phone. He ultimately pled guilty to first-degree aggravated domestic assault with a weapon for threatening to use a deadly weapon on his ex-girlfriend. Defendant received a sentence of eighteen months to six years, all suspended except for one year to serve. As part of the plea agreement, defendant was placed on probation under standard and special conditions and the two counts of disturbing the peace by phone were dismissed. About a week later, while defendant was in his jail cell, a corrections officer and a unit supervisor saw defendant squirting water out under his cell door. The corrections officer first spoke with defendant and warned him the facility would not tolerate this behavior. Defendant then became “verbally assaultive.” The unit supervisor reminded defendant that he could violate his probation if he continued to engage in this behavior. Defendant responded flippantly and loudly yelled several expletives at the supervisor. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred because threatening behavior required some accompanying physical conduct. If verbal statements qualify as threatening behavior, defendant alternatively argued that he did not receive adequate notice that his verbal statements could result in a violation of probation. After review of the trial court record, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded defendant's verbal statements to the corrections officer qualified as threatening behavior. The Court also concluded defendant was on sufficient notice that verbal statements could have qualified as threatening behavior. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that defendant violated a condition of his probation. View "Vermont v. Harwood" on Justia Law

Defendant Christina Allcock appealed her convictions for aggravated assault on a police officer, simple assault on a police officer, and impeding a police officer. Law enforcement responded to an emergency call in March 2015 and discovered a man stabbed in defendant’s residence. Defendant, her boyfriend, her parents, and her adult son were present when the officers responded to the call. While the officers were investigating the scene, defendant and some of the others left the residence and went to sit in defendant’s father’s car, which was parked outside. At some point an officer approached the vehicle, where defendant, her boyfriend, and her son were sitting in the back seat of the car. The doors were unlocked. When the officer tried to persuade defendant’s son to get out of the car to speak with him, defendant resisted. The officer testified at trial that defendant wrapped her arms around her son to prevent his exit; yelled at the officer; “slapp[ed],” “claw[ed],” and “gouged” his hands; held a lighter, which was lit, against his hand; and punched him in the mouth. Another officer also testified that defendant held the lighter against the first officer’s hand and sleeve. A jury found defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent sentences of eighteen months to six years for the aggravated assault, twelve to twenty-four months for the simple assault, and eighteen months to three years for the impeding-officer offense. On appeal, defendant argued her conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer had to be reversed because the trial court erred in admitting Facebook messages that were not properly authenticated, and that the trial court should not have allowed the State to alter the elements of the impeding charge after the evidence was closed. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the aggravated assault conviction, but affirmed the simple assault and impeding a police officer convictions. View "Vermont v. Allcock" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review in this interlocutory appeal centered on the available legal means for collaterally challenging a predicate conviction to an enhanced charge in light of two distinct lines of case law. Petitioner Joseph Benoit pled guilty to driving under the influence, third offense (DUI- 3), and subsequently challenged his underlying predicate convictions in a petition for post- conviction relief (PCR). The State sought summary judgment on the basis that by pleading guilty to DUI-3, petitioner waived his PCR challenges to any of the predicate convictions. The trial court denied summary judgment, concluding that Vermont case law required petitioner to raise his challenges in a post-sentencing PCR proceeding. The Supreme Court concluded defendant could raise collateral challenges to predicate convictions by preserving the challenge on the trial court record. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on different grounds than the trial court, and remanded for the court to consider whether petitioner's waiver was knowing and voluntary. View "In re Joseph S. Benoit v. (State of Vermont, Appellant)" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a number of independent school districts, school boards, parents, students, and citizens, challenged the implementation of Act 46, as amended by Act 49, regarding the involuntary merger of school districts. The Vermont Legislature enacted those laws in 2015 and 2017, respectively, to improve educational outcomes and equity by designing more efficient school governance structures in response to long-term declining student enrollment and balkanized educational governance and delivery systems. In separate decisions, the civil division dismissed several counts of plaintiffs’ amended complaint and then later granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the remaining counts. In two consolidated appeals, plaintiffs argued that: (1) the State Board of Education and the Agency of Education failed to carry out the plain-language mandate of Act 46; and (2) the Board’s implementation of the law, as manifested in its final order, violated other statutes in Title 16 and several provisions of the Vermont Constitution. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that the Agency’s and Board’s implementation of the law was consistent with the challenged Acts and other statutes in Title 16, did not result from an unlawful delegation of legislative authority, and did not violate any other constitutional provisions. Accordingly, the civil division’s decisions were affirmed. View "Athens School District et al. v. Vermont State Board of Education et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Huntington School District appealed the civil division’s order dismissing its complaint on motion of the two state defendants and granting defendant Mount Mansfield Modified Unified Union School District's motion for judgment on the pleadings. This case was one of several lawsuits challenging the implementation of Act 46 (as amended by Act 49) regarding the involuntary merger of school districts. Plaintiff raised four issues on appeal; three of those were resolved by the Vermont Supreme Court in a contemporaneously issued opinion concerning another challenge to the implementation of Acts 46 and 49, Athens Sch. Dist. et al. v. State Board of Education, 2020 VT 52. In this opinion, the Supreme Court set forth only the law and procedural history relevant to plaintiff’s single claim of error not decided in Athens School District: that the State Board of Education exceeded its delegated authority under Act 46 “by designating Huntington as a member of Mount Mansfield and purporting to subdelegate to Mount Mansfield the power to merge Huntington.” In relevant part, plaintiff alleged in its complaint that because Mount Mansfield was a union school district receiving incentives under Acts 153 and 156, the Board could not order Huntington to merge or otherwise alter its governance structure pursuant to Act 46, section 10(b). Plaintiff also alleged that the Board acted beyond its authority by calling for Mount Mansfield to vote on merger pursuant to 16 V.S.A. 721, while at the same time not allowing plaintiff to veto the merger by its own vote under the same statute. The state defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a viable claim for relief, and Mount Mansfield moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Court found "unavailing" plaintiff's argument that Act 46 as amended did not authorize the Board to order Huntington to merge with Mount Mansfield, conditioned upon the consent of coters in Mount Mansfield's member districts. Nor did the Court found any merit to plaintiff's argument that the Board's authority was unlawfully subdelegated. As we stated with respect to the plaintiffs in Athens School District, plaintiff in this case did not demonstrate the Board failed to apply any Title 16 provisions in circumstances in which they were applicable. View "Huntington School District v. Vermont State Board of Education et al." on Justia Law

Appellant Susan Inouye challenged the probate division's allowance of her mother's most recent will. Testator was ninety-two years old and a resident of Windsor County, Vermont when she died in 2016. Testator previously lived in Arizona and was married to John Walter McHugo. They had three children together before their divorce in 1978. In 1997, testator and her ex-husband each executed a will in Arizona. Each will provided for the establishment of a testamentary trust for the support of the other former spouse during their lifetime, and provided for the remaining assets to be divided equally among the three children after both former spouses have died. In 2006, while living in Montpelier, Vermont, testator executed another will revoking the 1997 will. The 2006 will divided most of testator’s estate between two of her children, who were the appellees in this case. It excluded testator’s ex-husband and third child, Susan Inouye. Testator’s ex- husband predeceased her in 2010. Appellant argued that this will was executed in violation of a prior contract for mutual wills, and that it therefore should not have been allowed for probate administration. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that the will was properly allowed, but that a contract for mutual wills may be enforced through a breach-of-contract claim. The Court therefore affirmed the probate division’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Estate of Patricia Bixby McHugo (Susan Inouye, Appellant)" on Justia Law

Applicant Lewis Birt successfully completed Vermont’s Law Office Study (LOS) Program in April 2000. Thereafter, applicant sat for the Vermont bar exam four times between 2002 and 2004, failing each time. In July 2019, applicant filed an application with the Vermont Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) to sit for the February 2020 bar exam. Licensing Counsel reviewed the application and raised concerns about both the length of time between applicant’s completion of the LOS Program, the 2019 application, and the number of applicant’s prior unsuccessful examination attempts. In light of those concerns, Licensing Counsel asked applicant if he wished to go forward with the application. Applicant elected to do so, and, in November 2019, supplied additional information directed at the concerns Licensing Counsel raised. At its December 2019 meeting, the BBE decided to deny applicant’s request to sit for the 2020 bar examination. In doing so, it relied on Rule of Admission to the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court 9(b)(1), which requires an applicant to sit for the bar exam within five years of completing the LOS Program unless the time is extended for good cause, and Rule 9(b)(4), which limits an applicant to four attempts to pass the examination unless the BBE waives the limitation upon a proper showing. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed with the BBE's finding that there was no cause to extend the five-year limit. Since his last exam in 2004, applicant worked as a musician, church residential real-estate manager, paralegal studies teacher for a for=profit school, and as a court reporter. Absent a waiver, applicant was deemed ineligible to sit for the 2020 bar examination because he did not meet the requirements of Rule 9(b)(1), and the Supreme Court concurred his application was properly denied. View "In re Lewis Y. Birt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bradley Newton, who was injured when his brother’s truck broke apart while on a lift in plaintiff’s garage, appealed the civil division’s decision granting summary judgment to defendants associated with the state-designated inspection station where the truck had been inspected several months earlier. In the early autumn of 2014, defendant Ron Preseau performed an annual state inspection of a 1994 GMC pickup truck owned by defendant Douglas Newton, who is plaintiff Bradley Newton’s brother. In late January 2015, the truck broke down while being operated on a public highway. Shortly thereafter, Douglas put the inoperable pickup on a flatbed truck and took it to plaintiff’s detached garage. In 2010, plaintiff had purchased and installed a lift in his garage. After the plow was removed from the front of the pickup, Douglas put the pickup, which had at least 300 pounds of sand in its bed, on the lift. After diagnosing the problem, Douglas asked plaintiff to assess the damage. While plaintiff was under the truck, it collapsed into two pieces, and plaintiff was injured when one of the pieces pinned him to the floor of the garage. In July 2017, plaintiff filed a personal injury action, alleging in relevant part that defendant Preseau and others had acted negligently in connection with the inspection of the truck. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that any legal duty owed by motor vehicle inspectors to third persons did not extend to plaintiff under the circumstances of this case, which did not involve operation of the subject vehicle or any other vehicle at the time of the incident in question. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the civil division’s decision. View "Newton v. Preseau" on Justia Law

Bernard Boudreau appealed the environmental division’s dismissal of his appeal of a Manchester Development Review Board (MDRB) decision for lack of jurisdiction. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that Boudreau’s appeal was a collateral attack on a zoning decision barred by the exclusivity-of-remedy provision in 24 V.S.A. 4472, and therefore affirmed. View "In re Hopkins Certificate of Compliance (Boudreau, Appellant)" on Justia Law