Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Bourdeau Bros., Inc. was a Vermont company that sold agricultural supplies, feed, and chemicals. Defendants operated a dairy farm in Georgia, Vermont. In July 2016, plaintiff sued defendant Boissonneault Family Farm, Inc. (BBF) for amounts owed for grain delivered by plaintiff to the farm. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint to add Jay and Cathy Boissonneault as co-defendants. In their answer, defendants denied that Cathy Boissonneault or BBF had done business with Bourdeau Bros., Inc. Defendants moved to dismiss Cathy Boissonneault and BBF as defendants. The court denied the motion. In February 2018, defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff owed defendants $16,000 for water plaintiff took from defendants’ pond. A two-day bench trial took place in March 2019. At the conclusion of the trial, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against Cathy Boissonneault. The court found that beginning in 2012, defendants Jay Boissonneault and BBF had an oral agreement with plaintiff to purchase grain. Each time plaintiff delivered grain, it presented an invoice to defendants. Defendants consistently paid the amounts indicated in the invoices until 2015, when defendants stopped paying. The court found that defendants owed plaintiff $27,564.97 for grain delivered in 2015, including interest of eighteen percent per year. The court denied plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees despite language in the invoices stating that plaintiff would be entitled to such fees in the event of a collection action. As the prevailing party at trial, plaintiff appealed the trial court’s denial of its request for attorney’s fees, arguing that it was entitled to recover attorney’s fees based on a term contained in invoices that it provided to defendants each time it delivered grain. Plaintiff argued that under 9A V.S.A. 2-207, the term became part of the parties’ contract when defendants failed to object to it within a reasonable time. Defendants cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly calculated damages and erred by dismissing their counterclaim and finding defendant Jay Boissonneault personally liable. The Vermont Supreme Court remanded for the trial court to reconsider whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees, but otherwise affirmed judgment. View "Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. Boissonneault Family Farm, Inc. et al." on Justia Law

MiHae (Hooper) Randall (mother) filed a motion with the family division requesting Timothy Randall (father) pay a portion of her attorney’s fees relating to proceedings modifying the parties' parental rights and responsibilities. The court denied mother’s motion. Mother filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment, which the court also denied. Mother appealed. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for attorney’s fees and therefore affirmed. View "Randall v. Hooper" on Justia Law

The trial court dismissed plaintiff Paul Civetti's negligence action against the Town of Isle La Motte and the Town Road Commissioner on grounds that: (1) because the Road Commissioner was an “appointed or elected municipal officer,” plaintiff was required by 24 V.S.A. section 901(a) to bring his action against the Town, rather than the Road Commissioner; and (2) the Town was, in turn, immune from suit based on municipal immunity. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that: the Town has formally adopted road standards for its town roads; the Road Commissioner is responsible for assuring that the Town’s roads meet those standards; Main Street did not comply with those standards, including standards relating to the “width and shoulder”; the Road Commissioner knew or should have known that Main Street did not comply; and plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident because of the non-compliant road. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that if the Road Commissioner was negligent in performing a ministerial function, the Town assumes the Road Commissioner’s place in defending the action and therefore may not assert municipal immunity from the claim pursuant to section 901(a) or § 901a, and that dismissal of this claim on the basis of qualified immunity was premature. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Civetti v. Turner" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the tax status of a 9.9-acre parcel of land containing an 11,500-square-foot garage that was owned and used by Zlotoff Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit charitable organization, for the purpose of storing and maintaining a collection of classic automobiles that it displayed at its nearby museum. The trial court ruled that the garage and the land were tax-exempt because they were used for a public purpose. However, it denied the Foundation’s request for a refund of property taxes paid to the Town of South Hero from 2016 to 2018 because the Foundation did not obtain a certificate of authority allowing it to transact business in Vermont until 2019. The Foundation and the Town both appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed judgment. View "Zlotoff Foundation, Inc. v. Town of South Hero" on Justia Law

Defendant Darryl Galloway appealed a trial court’s conclusion that he violated a condition of probation when he failed to complete a sex-offender treatment program while incarcerated. He argued that the Department of Corrections (DOC) impermissibly modified the condition in requiring him to complete an in-house program. In January 2009, defendant pled guilty to four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct - charges stemming from incidents in which defendant exposed his genitals to clothing store clerks in 2006. He received an aggregate sentence of four to twenty years suspended, except four years to serve. At the change-of-plea hearing, the court imposed several conditions of probation and placed defendant on probation. Relevant here, condition 31 mandated completion of the in-house program. In March 2010, DOC filed a violation-of-probation (VOP) complaint against defendant for violating condition 31, which defendant conceded. The court revoked probation on counts one and two and continued probation under the original conditions in counts three and four. In January 2019, DOC released defendant after he served the ten-year sentence on counts one and two. DOC put him on a bus bound for Seattle before realizing he was still on probation on counts three and four. DOC then retrieved defendant, placed him back in custody, and filed a second VOP complaint for violating condition 31 on counts three and four. DOC alleged that defendant refused to participate in VTPSA during his ten years of incarceration. In March 2019, the trial court held another VOP hearing. Noting a lack of evidence to prove that defendant was waiting to complete sex-offender treatment in the community, and his willingness to leave for Seattle without completing the treatment, the court found that defendant did not intend to complete sex-offender treatment. The court then found that defendant had been on probation since his guilty plea in 2009 and that given his ten-year failure to complete the treatment, he did not complete the programming within a reasonable amount of time. The court found defendant in violation of probation, revoked probation on counts three and four, and imposed the underlying two-to-ten-year sentence on those counts. The Vermont Supreme Court determined defendant did not have the opportunity to participate in a treatment program of his choosing in the community with respect to the remaining counts, so it could not find defendant actively refused to participate or that his conduct evinced an intent not to comply with condition 31. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Galloway" on Justia Law

Defendant Henry Clinton-Aimable appealed his conviction of knowing and unlawful possession of more than one ounce of cocaine. Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine following a traffic stop. On appeal, he argued that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded the seizure of defendant’s car was not supported by probable cause and that therefore the evidence seized from defendant’s car was not admissible. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and defendant's conviction was vacated. View "Vermont v. Clinton-Aimable" on Justia Law

Defendant Eric Nagel appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and dismiss. A deputy sheriff driving along Route 2 recognized the vehicle in front of him from previous law enforcement encounters. He ran a registration check on the vehicle and learned the car was registered to Courtney Nagel. The officer knew from prior law enforcement experience that Courtney Nagel was married to defendant and that defendant’s license was criminally suspended. He also was aware that defendant had been known to visit residences suspected of drug dealing. When the deputy initiated a traffic stop of defendant's car, a subsequent search resulted in the deputy finding drugs and drug-related paraphernalia in the vehicle. Defendant argued in support of his suppression motion that police officers violated Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution by expanding the scope of a valid traffic stop into a drug investigation without reasonable suspicion of drug-related criminal activity. To this, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed and reversed. View "Vermont v. Nagel" on Justia Law

Defendant Austin Burnett appealed a trial court’s decision that he violated a condition of his probation. Defendant’s relevant underlying convictions were for sexual assault of a victim under the age of sixteen and sexual assault, no consent. The court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of four to six years, suspended except for thirty-eight months, and five years, deferred, respectively. The court apparently generated one probation order in each docket, and the orders were filed separately in the court’s corresponding files. Both orders imposed eight standard conditions on defendant. Neither was signed by defendant. One of those conditions provided, “You shall participate fully in the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Abusers [VTPSA] during the course of your unsuspended sentence. Failure to complete said program while incarcerated may result in a violation of your probation.” This appeal arose in the context of the latter probation condition; the State filed substantially identical complaints for violation of probation in both dockets. The court noted that the VOP complaint filed by the State also listed “other non-compliant behavior,” and asked whether the defendant was planning to admit to any other behavior. The State said that no other admission was required, and defendant’s attorney stated that the other behavior was “older” and “I think the lock picking covers it.” Defendant argued the State both failed to prove the conditions of his probation and failed to prove that his conduct amounted to a violation. The Vermont Supreme Court concurred that the State failed to prove that defendant’s conduct amounted to a violation of the probation condition (VOP) and accordingly reversed on that ground. View "Vermont v. Burnett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued for quiet title to prevent defendants from using a road that passed through her property to access defendants' adjacent property. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, because the route at issue was a public highway established by the town in 1800 that was never discontinued. Finding no reversible error in the superior court's order, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bartlett v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The parties in this case disputed access to a segment of road that extended across defendant's property and onto plaintiff's property. The superior court determined plaintiffs had the right to use the road because it was a town highway that was never discontinued. Defendants argued the highway was discontinued by operation of Vermont's ancient-road law, went eh town did not include it on the town highway map by the time litigation had commenced. The Vermont Supreme Court found no reversible error in the superior court's order, and affirmed it. View "Doncaster v. Hane" on Justia Law