Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants Natural Resources Board and Applicant Two Rivers-Ottauquechee (TRO) Regional Commission appealed the Environmental Division’s award of an Act 250 permit to Applicant B&M Realty, LLC, to construct a large mixed-use business park near the Interstate 89 Exit 1 interchange in the Town of Hartford. The trial court concluded that the project satisfied Act 250, including the requirement that it conform with the 2007 TRO Regional Plan. The Natural Resources Board and the TRO Regional Commission argued on appeal that the project was inconsistent with mandatory and unambiguous provisions in the regional plan. Applicant cross-appealed, arguing that the 2007 Regional Plan did not apply, and that the Supreme Court need not consider the plan because the proposed development will not have substantial regional impact. The Supreme Court concluded that the 2007 Regional Plan applied and that the trial court’s conclusion that the project will have substantial regional impact is supported by the evidence, but held that the project was inconsistent with several provisions in the regional plan. The Court accordingly reversed. View "In re B&M Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, the State challenged the trial court’s suppression of two sets of statements that defendant John Powers made to his probation officer. The trial court determined that suppression was warranted because the probation officer did not provide defendant with the warnings required by "Miranda v. Arizona," (384 U.S. 436 (1966)). The State argued that Miranda warnings were not required because defendant was not in custody at the time he made his incriminatory statements. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the State with respect to the first set of statements and reversed the decision to suppress those statements; the Court reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision with respect to the second set of statements for further findings on the issue of custody. View "Vermont v. Powers" on Justia Law

Petitioner Mark Jankowski appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). In November 2010, petitioner pled guilty to sexual assault on a child, and was sentenced to a term of five to twenty years, all suspended except for three years to serve, and probation. He found to have violated his probation in August 2011. At the conclusion of its decision, the trial court indicated that the matter would be “set for a sentencing hearing.” At the sentencing hearing on March 13, 2012, the court asked if it would be a contested sentencing hearing, prompting counsel for the State and for petitioner to ask for time to confer. Their request was granted. Upon their return to court with petitioner, counsel informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement. Petitioner’s sentence would be amended from a five-to-twenty-year split sentence with three years to serve to a four-to-twenty-years straight sentence to serve. His probation would be revoked. He would also be given credit for all time served. Defense counsel indicated that he had spoken with petitioner and stated that petitioner had agreed with the resolution. The court accepted the agreement. A year later, Petitioner filed a pro se PCR petition, alleging the Violation of Probation (VOP) process violated his constitutional rights. He asserted that no sentencing hearing was held, he did not waive such hearing, and he was never personally addressed by the court. The PCR court granted summary judgment to the State, concluding petitioner’s rights were satisfied when he was afforded a full evidentiary hearing on the merits portion of the revocation hearing. The Supreme Court held that petitioner was entitled to PCR to overturn his probation revocation. The case was remanded for a new determination regarding whether his probation should be revoked and a new sentencing hearing if it was revoked. View "In re Mark Jankowski" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Solomon appealed the dismissal, without consideration of the merits, of her petition for dissolution of a nonresident civil union. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a civil union in 2001 in Brattleboro, Vermont, but both resided in Wake County, North Carolina. The parties were separated by May 2014. The parties had no children. In 2015, they decided to dissolve their civil union and filed an uncontested complaint in Vermont, accompanied by a final stipulation as required by 15 V.S.A. 1206(b). The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the parties failed to produce evidence that they attempted to obtain a dissolution of the civil union in North Carolina. The court expressed concern that if Vermont courts “continue[d] to accept these filings and allow courts in other states to ignore precedent [set by Obergefell v. Hodges, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2608 (2015)], the situation [would] never be resolved.” Because civil marriage and civil unions remained legally distinct entities in Vermont and because "Obergefell" mandated that states recognize only same-sex marriage, uncertainty remained as to whether Obergefell required other states to recognize and dissolve civil unions established in Vermont. The parties here followed the section 1206(b) mandates. Plaintiff contended that the provided affidavit satisfied the “acknowledgment” required by § 1206(b), and thus the court erred when it refused to consider the issue and held that North Carolina was the proper venue for all filings and appeals. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff, and reversed and remanded the trial court's dismissal. View "Solomon v. Guidry" on Justia Law

This case stems from the rate filing submitted to the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB) by MVP Health Insurance Company (MVP) with respect to the Agri-Services health insurance plan. The State of Vermont, GMCB found that the 2015 Agri-Services rate filing would not promote access to quality health care and denied it for that reason. MVP appealed, arguing: (1) that GMCB’s disapproval was an arbitrary use of discretion based on vague standards that unconstitutionally delegated authority to GMCB; (2) that GMCB’s decision was not supported by the record; and (3) that GMCB’s statutory interpretation of its authority was compelling error. After review, the Supreme Court held that 8 V.S.A. 4062 was constitutional, but found that GMCB’s conclusions were not supported by specific findings on the statutory criteria required for approval of health insurance rates and, accordingly, reversed and remanded for new findings. View "In re MVP Health Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Dennis Chandler appealed a superior court decision denying his claim for summary judgment, and granting the summary judgment motion filed by the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections. Plaintiff claimed that several statutes and policies enacted after his incarceration had the collective effect of retroactively increasing the length of his sentence and, as a result, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that, because the statutes and policies did not retroactively alter or limit the Department’s discretion over plaintiff’s treatment programming and early release, their application did not result in a longer sentence than under the prior statutes and policies. View "Chandler v. Pallito" on Justia Law

C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., a wholesale grocery distributor, disputed sales tax assessed by the Vermont Department of Taxes on the purchase of reusable fiberglass freezer tubs used in the transport of perishable items, as well as the Department’s refusal to refund sales tax paid on diesel fuel used to power refrigeration systems mounted on taxpayer’s tractor trailers. C&S also contended the penalty assessed by the Commissioner of the Department of Taxes, arguing that it is unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Taxes. View "C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Dept. of Taxes" on Justia Law

Mother appealed a superior court order finding that her proposed relocation and parents’ breakdown in communication were changed circumstances warranting modification of parental rights and responsibilities and transferring sole legal and physical responsibilities of their autistic son to father. She argued that the court erred in finding a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances, and that the decision to modify the extant custody agreement was not in the best interests of the child. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s finding of changed circumstances with respect to the court’s award of legal rights and responsibilities to father based on the breakdown in parental cooperation, but reversed and remanded the modification in the order with respect to physical rights and responsibilities and parent-child contact. View "Wener v. Wener" on Justia Law

B.G. was born in September 2006. Mother and father separated in 2007. B.G. has a younger half-sister, C.B., born in August 2009. Mother’s relationships with B.G.’s father and her two subsequent partners, including C.B.’s father, were abusive. In 2010, mother was prescribed pain medication, and this led to a heroin addiction. Mother often left B.G. with his paternal grandfather and step-grandmother. In 2011, when mother planned to move to New York, grandparents began caring for B.G. full time. B.G.’s step-grandmother has been responsible for all interactions with school, doctors, dentists, and counselors. Mother did not participate in any of these aspects of B.G.’s life. B.G. witnessed the domestic violence in mother’s relationships even after 2011 when his time with mother was quite limited. In January 2014, the court removed C.B. from mother’s home. The court issued a Temporary Custody Order transferring custody of the half-sister to grandparents with protective supervision by the Department for Children and Families (DCF). There was no order issued pertaining to B.G., but the court noted that there was an agreement reached by DCF, mother, and step-grandmother that if mother tried to remove B.G. from step-grandmother’s care, DCF would be notified and would seek a conditional custody order. Mother did not progress past supervised visits with C.B. In January 2015, the State filed a petition alleging B.G. was CHINS for lack of proper parental care. Mother appealed the family court’s order concluding that B.G. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS), arguing that the court erred in finding that B.G. was abandoned or without proper parental care because mother made arrangements for B.G.’s care. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the CHINS adjudication on the basis that B.G. was abandoned. View "In re B.G." on Justia Law

This appeal centered on a timber harvest by landowner Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, LLC in forestland enrolled in the current-use, tax-incentive program. The Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation (FPR) issued an adverse inspection report, concluding that Plum Creek violated its forest-management plan and failed to comply with minimum acceptable standards during the harvest. Consequently, the Department of Taxes removed the land from the current-use program and levied a tax assessment. Plum Creek appealed, and the superior court reversed those administrative decisions. FPR then appealed, arguing that the superior court failed to give appropriate deference to FPR’s determination of the proper methodology for measuring compliance with the forest-management plan. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the court’s decision, reinstating the adverse-inspection report as upheld by the FPR Commissioner. The case was remanded back to the superior court to consider the questions raised in Plum Creek’s appeal of the PVR Director’s decision removing land from the UVA program and leveling a tax assessment. View "Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, LLC v. Vermont Dept. of Forests, Parks & Rec." on Justia Law