Paul L. Reiber

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved a helicopter pilot who sought to construct a helipad on his property but was unable to obtain the required certificate of approval from the Vermont Transportation Board because the Town of Cavendish, which has no zoning ordinance, would not provide municipal approval or a confirming letter. The plaintiff pursued injunctions against the Town and Board as well as review of the Board's refusal to consider his petition for a declaratory ruling, but the trial court dismissed all claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claim against the Town, holding that Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 provided the exclusive remedy and the plaintiff had missed the 30-day appeal deadline. It reversed dismissal of the claims against the state defendants, reasoning that no final Board order on the merits existed from which to appeal under Rule 74 or 75, so the plaintiff could proceed with review of the refusal to hear the declaratory petition and seek an injunction directing the Board to consider the application.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a landowner, Clyde’s Place LLC, that replaced a preexisting nonconforming house on a steep lakeside lot in Orwell with a new structure after obtaining a 2006 zoning permit allowing construction “over existing footprint.” The Town later issued a notice of violation and denied a new permit or variance, claiming the as-built structure violated setback requirements under the 1995 zoning bylaws. The Environmental Court upheld the NOV and denial, finding the new building exceeded the allowed footprint. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the permit’s key terms were ambiguous and therefore had to be construed in the landowner’s favor, rendering the new structure consistent with the original permit and preserving its nonconforming status.

propertyenvironment

This case involved the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) substantiating a mother, M.E., for placing her twelve-year-old son at risk of harm after he suffered a serious drug overdose; DCF found that she failed to promptly arrange recommended drug assessment and treatment despite medical advice following his discharge from the hospital. The Human Services Board reversed DCF's decision to place M.E. on the child abuse and neglect registry via summary judgment without making findings of fact. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Board's order and remanded the case, holding that the Board must make objective findings on whether M.E.'s delay in seeking care met the statutory definition of risk of harm and DCF policy criteria for egregious conduct creating significant danger of serious physical injury. The court noted unresolved factual questions about the timing of appointments and the link between the mother's actions and potential harm to the child.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of sexually assaulting his step-granddaughter under 13 V.S.A. § 2602. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that he used a paddle to discipline the victim and her sister, claiming the evidence was irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and accompanied by an insufficient limiting instruction. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the paddling evidence was relevant under Rule 404(b) to explain the victim's delayed disclosure and rebut the defense's fabrication claims, that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and that any challenge to the limiting instruction was waived for failure to object at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a wrongful death action in which the estate of Rejean Lussier sued three fellow hunters after Lussier was fatally shot by a fourth member of the hunting party, Collin Wens, during a "pushing" or "driving" hunt on Lussier's property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the defendants were not subject to concerted-action liability for Wens's conduct. The court reasoned that such liability requires proof that the defendants knowingly participated in a common scheme or design to commit the specific tortious act or assisted Wens in his reckless rifle handling, but the group's lawful hunting plan did not encompass or encourage Wens's unsafe actions, which were outside the agreed plan and not a natural result of it.

torts & liability

The case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners in Burlington, Vermont, where plaintiff Andrew Schonbek, as trustee, claimed a prescriptive easement across defendants David and Brianne Chase's land at 158 Cherry Street to provide emergency egress from the back of his building at 150 Cherry Street to Pearl Street. The trial court ruled in plaintiff's favor, recognizing a twelve-foot-wide easement for vehicular and pedestrian use, ordering removal of defendants' fence, and awarding over $80,000 in damages for the costs of an internal fire corridor that plaintiff had built. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence failed to establish the required elements of a prescriptive easement because the alleged uses by plaintiff's predecessors were not sufficiently open and notorious on defendants' property and did not support the claimed right. The court dismissed the complaint after finding that activities like alley maintenance or occasional vehicle use did not meet the legal standards for adverse, continuous use over the statutory period.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Williams, the defendant appealed his jury conviction for aggravated domestic assault, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted testimony about two prior incidents in which he allegedly assaulted the complainant. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of the prior assaults was admissible under Vermont Rule of Evidence 404(b) to provide necessary context about the nature of the parties' relationship and to rebut the defense's claims that the complainant had fabricated the allegations due to external pressures. The court reasoned that this evidence helped explain the complainant's delay in reporting the incident and her continued interactions with the defendant, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, especially given the trial court's limiting instruction to the jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Patrick Spooner’s conviction after a jury trial for aggravated sexual assault of a child under eighteen, in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3252(d). On appeal, Spooner argued that the trial court violated the Vermont Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clauses of the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions by admitting recorded statements made by the victim during interviews rather than requiring her to give all testimony live. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that defense counsel had entered into a pretrial stipulation allowing portions of the recordings to be played, that counsel reaffirmed the stipulation during trial even after the victim testified, and that this constituted a valid waiver of confrontation rights as a matter of trial tactics.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff James Spooner suing the Town of Topsham for denying him a road foreman position based on age in violation of Vermont's Fair Employment Practices Act, after which a jury found for the plaintiff. Following affirmance of the verdict, the plaintiff sought attorney's fees and costs, including those incurred in an earlier interlocutory appeal to obtain a witness's testimony and for work by co-counsel at trial. The trial court denied fees for the interlocutory appeal entirely and for co-counsel's services as duplicative, but the Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the trial court misapplied the lodestar analysis by failing to award fees for the successful appeal and for any non-duplicative attorney work.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved consolidated civil suspension and criminal DUI proceedings against a defendant stopped for speeding, where a trooper observed signs of alcohol consumption, conducted field sobriety tests, and obtained breathalyzer results showing elevated BAC more than two hours after operation. The trial court upheld the exit order as supported by reasonable suspicion, ruled for the state in the civil suspension by applying a statutory presumption of impairment based on the test results, but suppressed the Datamaster evidence in the criminal case after a Daubert hearing found retrograde extrapolation unreliable. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the civil suspension outcome, holding that the presumption could apply even to tests outside the two-hour window when evidence showed the BAC exceeded the limit within that period, and reversed the suppression ruling, finding the results admissible under the more flexible standards of civil proceedings versus criminal ones.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McManis, the defendant was convicted of marijuana possession after a search of his home pursuant to a warrant uncovered plants and paraphernalia; he appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause under Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the conviction and granted the motion to suppress and dismiss. The core reasoning was that the supporting affidavit failed to supply sufficient information for an independent judicial determination of probable cause, as it relied on hearsay and double hearsay from a confidential informant without establishing credibility and on electrical records showing increased usage without any explanation linking the increase to marijuana cultivation rather than innocent activity. The court limited its analysis to the four corners of the affidavit and held that the warrant was therefore invalid, requiring suppression of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Youngbluth v. Youngbluth, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from an enforcement order in a divorce case that increased the percentage of the husband's military retirement benefits awarded to the wife under the original property division. The case arose after the husband, post-divorce, obtained a 30% VA disability rating that reduced his taxable retirement payments, leading the trial court to adjust the wife's share from 19.81% to 22.4% to preserve the intended monthly amount and to clarify the order for direct payments from DFAS. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the validity of dividing disposable retirement benefits under federal and state law while holding that the trial court could not reallocate or increase the percentage in an enforcement action to account for the shift to disability benefits, which federal law exempts from division. The reasoning centered on the distinction between retirement and disability pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1408 and 38 U.S.C. § 5301, prior affirmance of the initial division, and the limits of enforcement versus modification proceedings.

family lawpropertyfederal power

The case involved neighbors appealing the Environmental Court's approval of Champlain College's application to renovate an existing building and construct a new dormitory for student housing on its campus in Burlington, Vermont, with disputes centered on compliance with local zoning density and setback requirements. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the project satisfied the applicable density limits of 24 residential units per acre under the Champlain College Core Campus Overlay district regulations. The court reasoned that the specific CCO density provision controlled and harmonized with the general UC district rules, and that the project's total units—whether calculated as one per room or using the city's four-room equivalent method—fell below the maximum allowable for the parcel. The opinion also addressed related procedural and finality issues but upheld the project's approval on the merits.

propertyenvironment

The case involved the State of Vermont appealing a district court's order suppressing statements made by defendant Michael Christmas to a detective after his arrest on suspicion of murder. The district court found that the detective failed to scrupulously honor the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent by engaging in unrecorded small talk and personal stories intended to elicit a confession, then re-asking about the crime without first giving Miranda warnings. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, concluding that the detective's interactions after the initial invocation of silence amounted to continued interrogation under Miranda and Michigan v. Mosley, with no meaningful break in time and warnings administered only after the defendant agreed to speak. The court reviewed the mixed question of fact and law de novo on the legal conclusions and determined that the right to silence was not respected, rendering the subsequent confession inadmissible.

criminal lawprocedure