_verso_John_3%2C_14-18%2C_34-36.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Molleur v. Molleur
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2012-03-09 · cited 17×
This case involved a divorce between a husband with a military pension as the primary marital asset and a wife who had limited employment history due to health issues and homemaking during the marriage. The family court awarded the wife 75% of the marital portion of the husband's pension and spousal maintenance that decreased after his anticipated retirement, with an inflation adjustment. Husband appealed, arguing the awards were an abuse of discretion and the inflation provision arbitrary. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the property division and maintenance awards, viewing them as an integrated package under state statutes that allow consideration of property in maintenance determinations and vice versa, but remanded solely to correct the inflation-adjustment mechanism. The core reasoning centered on the trial court's discretion in balancing statutory factors for equitable distribution and support needs.
family lawproperty
In Re Estates of Allen
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-08-19 · cited 7×
This case involved a dispute among family members over ownership of mineral rights on a parcel of land, stemming from a quiet-title action based on adverse possession after an earlier 1920 reservation of those rights. The probate court initially awarded plaintiff Gary Rupe a one-third interest, but on appeal the superior court dismissed his claim and granted all rights to defendant Richard Rupe. Plaintiff appealed, raising issues including whether the superior court exceeded its authority by addressing matters beyond the stated questions on appeal, misapplied adverse possession standards, and erred regarding cotenancy or unjust enrichment. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's judgment, finding no reversible error in its handling of the appeal or application of the law to the undisputed facts of possession and prior settlements between the parties.
propertyprocedure
Iannarone v. Limoggio
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-08-12 · cited 22×
This case involves a dispute over enforcement of the property division in a 1996 divorce decree regarding the parties' marital home in Dover, Vermont. The wife moved to enforce a provision guaranteeing her $150,000 upon sale or when the youngest child turned eighteen and to impose a constructive trust, but the family court denied the motion after a prior 2005-2006 proceeding had addressed related title, sale, and mortgage issues. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial, concluding that the wife's claims were barred by res judicata because all elements were present and could have been raised in the earlier litigation. The court reasoned that the prior decision resolved the core obligations under the divorce judgment, including the husband's purchase rights and the effect of the undischarged mortgage, precluding relitigation.
family lawpropertyprocedure
State v. Smith
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-07-28 · cited 4×
This case involved whether operating a boom lift while intoxicated on a public street constitutes driving under the influence under Vermont law. The defendant was charged with DUI and driving with a suspended license after moving a boom lift across a street, but the trial court dismissed the charges on the ground that a boom lift is not a motor vehicle. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, concluding that the boom lift qualifies as a motor vehicle because it is propelled by non-muscular power and does not fall within any statutory exceptions. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute includes such equipment and that its design allows for self-transportation on highways, consistent with the purpose of protecting public safety from impaired operators.
criminal law
State v. Kinney
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-07-22 · cited 12×
In State v. Kinney, the defendant was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated, third offense, and attempting to elude a police officer after an ATV pursuit in which an officer identified him as the driver, he was found with the ATV key, and his blood alcohol level tested well above the legal limit. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of his refusal to take a preliminary breath test, the prosecutor's closing argument remarks, and the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the driver. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that any error in admitting the PBT refusal evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the officer's direct observations and supporting circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant's identity and guilt. The court reasoned that the officer had multiple clear views of the driver during the chase, the ATV and clothing matched the defendant's, and the defendant's claims of a third driver lacked any corroboration.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Shenandoah LLC
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-07-01 · cited 19×
In In re Shenandoah LLC, the appellants challenged an Act 250 jurisdictional opinion from Vermont's Environmental Court that attributed land development and subdivision activities by several LLCs and an irrevocable trust to individuals David Shlansky and Ting Chang for purposes of determining permitting thresholds under the statute. The case centered on whether these activities by entities connected to a trust benefiting the couple's minor children counted toward the ten-unit or ten-lot limits that trigger Act 250 review for housing projects and subdivisions. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision upholding the opinion, concluding that Shlansky and Chang receive beneficial interests from the trust's developments, making them "persons" under the broad statutory definition that includes affiliated individuals and entities. The court declined to address an unpreserved constitutional challenge to person-based jurisdiction. The majority reasoned that the affiliations and benefits required aggregating the projects, while a dissent argued for more factual development on control and beneficial interests before summary judgment.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty