Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Co-Operative Insurance Companies v. Woodward
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2012-03-30 · cited 28×
This case involved a dispute over whether a homeowners' insurance policy covered claims against Denise Woodward for negligent supervision in connection with the abduction, assault, and murder of Brooke Bennett by her ex-husband. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling of no coverage, and the trial court granted summary judgment in its favor. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy's intentional-acts exclusion for acts by "an insured" barred coverage because the injuries resulted from the intentional and criminal acts of another insured, and the severability clause did not create ambiguity or extend coverage. The court reasoned that the claims did not arise from an "occurrence" as defined and that exclusions for "an insured" apply collectively to bar coverage for all insureds.
torts & liability
Parker v. Parker
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2012-03-15 · cited 8×
In Parker v. Parker, a divorced mother sought to modify parental rights and responsibilities to gain sole legal and physical custody while relocating with the children to Buffalo, New York; the father cross-moved for a transfer of physical rights and responsibilities, citing communication breakdowns and parental alienation. The family division found a material change in circumstances based on the mother's conditional relocation plans and awarded sole physical parental rights and responsibilities to the father to ensure maximum parent-child contact, while denying the mother's relocation request. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings on the children's best interests were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review under the statutory factors, and therefore remanded the case for additional findings without disturbing the existing order in the interim.
family law
Nordlund v. Van Nostrand
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-07-15 · cited 15×
This case involved a dispute over access to a landlocked property in Salisbury, Vermont, where plaintiff Linda Nordlund sought to enforce prior zoning decisions limiting use of an 18-foot right-of-way across her parcel to reach defendants' back parcel. After defendants obtained a zoning permit based on a separate 50-foot right-of-way across another parcel, plaintiff brought a private enforcement action under 24 V.S.A. § 4470(b) in the Environmental Division, asking the court to restrict use of the original right-of-way and allow installation of a gate. The Environmental Division granted summary judgment to defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that no zoning decision prohibited use of the narrower right-of-way or required exclusive use of the approved one, so there was no decision to enforce under the statute and the Environmental Division therefore lacked jurisdiction over the claim.
propertyenvironmentprocedure
Rheaume v. Pallito
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-07-01 · cited 158×
This case involves an inmate serving a life sentence who challenged the Vermont Department of Corrections' designation of him as a high-risk sex offender and the associated programming requirements. The trial court dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75, but the Supreme Court reversed in part. The court held that the high-risk designation is reviewable under Rule 75 pursuant to statute, but programming decisions are discretionary matters for the Commissioner of Corrections under 28 V.S.A. § 102 and thus not subject to such review. The case was remanded to determine whether the appeal of the designation was timely filed.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Estate of Lovell
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-06-10 · cited 2×
The case concerned whether a son, acting as his father's attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney executed before 2002, could validly transfer title to the father's farm to himself and his brother for no consideration. The trial court granted summary judgment to the stepson/plaintiff, finding the transfer invalid, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that 14 V.S.A. § 3504(e) and (f) require a power of attorney to explicitly authorize an agent to make gifts of the principal's property to third parties or to the agent, and the broad language in this POA granting authority over real property deeds was insufficient. The court distinguished a prior precedent allowing transfers into a trust and rejected the defendants' laches defense, noting the plaintiff's delay was measured from the stepmother's death and was not unreasonable.
propertyfamily law
In Re Brett
Supreme Court of Vermont · 2011-02-25 · cited 2×
Jean Brett appealed a decision by the Secretary of the Agency of Human Services disallowing a deduction for personal care services provided by her daughter beyond the five days covered under Vermont’s Medicaid Choices for Care Program when calculating her patient share. The court affirmed the Secretary’s ruling that these additional services could not be deducted as noncovered medical expenses. The core reasoning was that the services fell within categories coverable by the program under state Medicaid rules, including through possible variances for medical necessity, so they did not qualify as noncovered even if not currently provided. The court noted that Brett could request seven-day coverage for a determination of medical necessity but had not done so.
healthcare