John A. Dooley 3

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

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

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

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

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 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

This case involves a dispute over ownership rights in a small hilltop cemetery plot on a Vermont farm property originally settled by the Aldrich family. The petitioner, current owner of the farm, sought a declaratory judgment allowing removal of the cemetery after respondent buried his parents' cremated remains there in 1981, claiming the 1853 deed reserved only an easement for the Aldrich heirs. The trial court ruled for respondent, finding an implied and recorded easement that bound subsequent owners. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the deed's explicit language excepting the 41-by-27-foot burying ground from the conveyed premises created a fee simple interest retained by the Aldrich family, meaning respondent's family never acquired title or burial rights in the plot.

property

This case addressed whether a retroactive lump-sum Social Security disability benefit paid directly to a father's children could offset his existing child support arrearage. The Vermont Supreme Court held that the benefits could be credited against the arrearage and affirmed the lower court rulings. The court reasoned that such a credit did not amount to a retroactive modification of the child support order prohibited by state statute, but instead merely substituted the source of payment for the father's obligation during his period of disability. It further concluded that allowing the offset did not improperly reopen prior support judgments.

family law

The case involved a claimant's appeal from the Employment Security Board's denial of unemployment benefits after he refused an offered job as an electrical helper in Albany, New York, five hours from his home in Derby, Vermont. The claims adjudicator and later the Board found that the work was suitable under 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(C) and that the claimant had refused it without good cause, relying in part on his prior acceptance of distant Vermont job sites with travel and lodging support. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board improperly took new ex parte, unsworn testimony from the employer at its hearing despite its own rules and notices stating no new evidence would be accepted, that this evidence influenced the Board's findings on suitability, and that the procedural violation required reversal and remand for award of benefits.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Albarelli, the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct after approaching a voter registration table promoting Barack Obama's campaign and engaging in an agitated, loud rant against the candidate that lasted about twenty minutes, causing discomfort to the volunteers but without any physical contact or explicit threats. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction on appeal, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the element of threatening behavior under 13 V.S.A. § 1026(1). The court reasoned that the defendant's conduct consisted of forceful but non-threatening political speech, with no intent to harm conveyed, no aggressive physical movements toward others, and no profanity or direct threats, even though witnesses found his demeanor unnerving and irrational.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant convicted after a jury trial of sexual assault on a minor and adjudged a habitual offender based on a prior conviction. On appeal, the defendant argued that a July 11 interview violated Miranda and his right to counsel and tainted a later confession, that the August 2 interview also violated Miranda and the right to counsel, and that a decriminalized prior conviction could not support habitual-offender status. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the first interview violated Miranda and the Sixth Amendment but the second interview did not, that the August 2 confession was not fruit of the poisonous tree, and that the prior conviction remained usable because the relevant statutory change was a redefinition rather than a reduction in punishment covered by the saving clause. The decision rested on factual distinctions between the interviews regarding custody, voluntariness, and notice to counsel, plus application of precedent interpreting the saving statute.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two insurance companies, Peerless and Old Republic, over the allocation of costs from a settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a 2002 truck collision in which Tucker, while hauling waste for Casella, killed Hathaway. After the underlying claims were settled, the insurers litigated coverage issues, including whether Tucker qualified as Casella's employee (making Old Republic's policy primary), whether Casella was an insured under the Peerless policy, and whether the federal Motor Carrier Act required reforming the Peerless policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to Peerless, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts showed sufficient control by Casella to establish an employment relationship, that Casella was not covered by Peerless's policy, and that the Motor Carrier Act did not mandate reformation or alter the policy terms. The court also determined that the insurers' policies required proportional sharing of the settlement based on their limits, with Old Republic bearing the larger share.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Thomas, the defendant appealed a restitution order after pleading guilty to aggravated assault for attacking a victim at a party, which led to the victim's hospitalization; the plea agreement did not mention restitution. The defendant argued that the court lacked authority to impose restitution because it was omitted from the plea deal, that injuries were not proximately caused by his crime, and that neither the victims' compensation program nor the hospital qualified as direct victims. The court affirmed the restitution award to the victims' compensation program for medical bills paid on the victim's behalf, finding it supported by the facts admitted in the plea and consistent with the statutory definition of victim. However, it struck the portion directing payment to the hospital, reasoning that medical providers suffer only indirect losses and thus fall outside the narrow statutory definition of a victim entitled to restitution, and remanded for adjustment of the order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether incriminating statements made by defendant William D. Muntean during a police interview should be suppressed due to the lack of Miranda warnings. The trial court found that the defendant was in custody throughout the interview at the state police barracks and suppressed the statements. On interlocutory appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the decision. The court reasoned that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would not have felt free to terminate the interview and leave, based on the circumstances including the controlled access room, the detective's confrontational tactics, and the overall atmosphere of the questioning.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the Vermont child protection registry maintained by the Department for Children and Families (DCF). DCF substantiated a report against petitioner R.H. for placing her three-year-old daughter at substantial risk of harm by leaving her alone in an unlocked, unheated vehicle and sought to add her name to the registry under a "single egregious act" policy standard. The Human Services Board reversed DCF's decision, finding that the risk existed but no purpose would be served by registry placement, applying a gross negligence standard. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Board applied an incorrect legal standard for substantiation and that collateral estoppel from a related family court proceeding did not bar the challenge because a different standard was used there.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a divorced husband seeking to terminate his obligation to pay spousal maintenance to his disabled ex-wife after being laid off from his long-term job at IBM. The family court found no substantial change of circumstances while the husband received unemployment benefits and ordered him to continue paying the original $3000 per month during that period, then reduced the amount to $1500 per month once benefits ended. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the order, reasoning that the husband's pension income, imputed minimum-wage earnings, new wife's contributions, and overall financial position did not meet the statutory threshold for modification until the benefits expired, at which point a prospective adjustment was appropriate based on certain future changes.

family law

In State v. Arrington, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to various drug-related charges and appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless arrest, arguing that police lacked probable cause based on an informant's tip. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the informant's detailed predictions about the defendant's arrival and vehicle, combined with her basis of knowledge and the quick verifiability of her statements, provided sufficient indicia of reliability under the Aguilar-Spinelli test to establish probable cause for the arrest. The court reviewed the facts de novo but upheld the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusion that the evidence and statements obtained after the arrest were admissible. It rejected arguments that the informant's self-interest or prior falsehood undermined the reliability of her specific information about the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with voyeurism for allegedly viewing a neighbor through her bathroom window while she showered, in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2605(b)(1). After the jury indicated during deliberations that it believed the defendant was trying to view intimate areas but may not have succeeded due to the window, the trial court gave a supplemental instruction on attempt, and the jury convicted the defendant of attempted voyeurism. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of attempted voyeurism under Vermont law. The court reasoned that the facts did not establish the elements of attempt, including any extraneous interruption or prevention of the completed offense, as opposed to factual impossibility.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two former Vermont state troopers who challenged their mandatory retirement at age 55 under 3 V.S.A. § 459(a)(2) as violating the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution, and also contested the statutory exception allowing such retirements in the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act. The trial court dismissed damages claims on sovereign immunity grounds and, after a bench trial, ruled that the retirement policy did not violate the constitutional provision. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed, accepting findings that physical and cognitive abilities decline with age in ways relevant to public safety duties, that the bright-line age rule offers administrative simplicity over individualized testing, and that expert testimony supported the policy despite evidence of the plaintiffs' fitness. The court noted the policy's origins in union and legislative priorities unrelated to occupational qualifications but upheld it as rationally related to maintaining a capable workforce.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Vermont Mutual Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its general liability policies issued to landlord Parsons Hill Partnership did not cover tenants' claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability arising from contaminated drinking water containing the pollutant PCE. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the claims involved pollutants subject to a pollution endorsement and exclusion, with no coverage available under standard provisions for bodily injury, property damage, or personal injury. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the unambiguous policy language placed such pollution-related claims exclusively under the limited pollution endorsement, which did not provide coverage here, while Coverage A was excluded and Coverage B did not apply to the habitability claims.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory