Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Taxpayer Gabriel Martinez appealed a Property Valuation and Review Division (PVR) hearing officer's decision setting the fair market value of his property for purposes of the 2017 Town of Hartford grand list. Taxpayer argued the hearing officer erred in estimating fair market value based on sales of comparable properties because the value was conclusively established by the price taxpayer paid for the property in a contemporaneous arms-length transaction. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court held that, although the recent arms-length sale price constituted strong presumptive evidence of the fair market value of the property, the hearing officer did not commit legal error in considering other evidence of fair market value. In addition, the Court concluded the appraisal was rationally derived from the findings and evidence. View "Martinez v. Town of Hartford" on Justia Law

Father, Joe Golden, challenged a family division magistrate’s order requiring him to continue paying child support past his son S.W.’s eighteenth birthday while S.W. was enrolled in a home-study program. Father argued that the magistrate erred in finding that S.W.’s home-study program qualified as high school under the 2002 child-support order and in ordering him to continue paying child support on that basis. Resolving this dispute required review of the evidentiary record, as well as a review of the magistrate’s findings, analysis, and conclusions. The Vermont Supreme Court found father, appearing pro se, did not provide any record of the trial court's proceedings. "Because we lack a sufficient record to review the magistrate’s order, we have no basis on which to disturb it." View "Golden v. Worthington" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Hinton appealed a superior court’s sentence following his guilty plea to escaping from furlough. Defendant argued that new legislation decriminalizing the conduct should have been applied retroactively to him. Separately, he argued the court abused its discretion when it ordered the sentence to run consecutively to two other sentences. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Vermont v. Hinton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-investors appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) and current and former state employees arising from the operation of a federally licensed regional center in the United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) EB-5 program. USCIS designated ACCD as a regional center in 1997, and ACCD began operating the Vermont Regional Center (VRC). It was not the only state-affiliated regional center, but it was the only one that represented itself as a “state-run agency.” The VRC billed itself as an attractive option for development and foreign investment due to its superlative “oversight powers,” the overwhelming investor confidence that came from its “stamp of approval,” and the State of Vermont’s backing that would result in a “faster path to approval.” ACCD employees represented to prospective investors, including plaintiffs, that the added protections of state approval and oversight made the "Jay Peak Projects" a particularly sound investment. They told prospective investors that the VRC conducted quarterly reviews to ensure that projects complied with all applicable laws and regulations and “engag[ed] in the financial monitoring and auditing of projects to ensure legitimacy,” and they represented that MOUs imposed “strict covenants and obligations on the project to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.” Unbeknownst to the investors, but known to the VRC officials, no such state oversight by the VRC existed. The VRC never issued any of the quarterly reports contemplated in the MOUs. In April 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit alleging securities fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud against the Jay Peak Projects developers. On the basis of these and other allegations, plaintiffs, all foreign nationals who invested in the Jay Peak Projects, filed a multi-count claim against ACCD and several individual defendants. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint for a third time to a Fourth Amended Complaint, and then dismissed all thirteen counts on various grounds. Plaintiffs appealed. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims of negligence against ACCD, gross negligence against defendants Brent Raymond and James Candido, and breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against ACCD. The Court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims. View "Sutton et al. v. Vermont Regional Center et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Thomas Gauthier appealed his conviction for violating the Sex Offender Registration Act after he he knowingly failed to comply with reporting requirements while released on furlough status. He argued on appeal that furlough status was a form of “incarceration,” and therefore he fell under the exception to the sex-offender reporting requirements that relieved sex offenders of the reporting requirements “during periods of incarceration.” The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that based on the plain language of the statute that the reporting requirements applied to furloughed individuals living in the community, and therefore affirmed. View "Vermont v. Gauthier" on Justia Law

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