Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The issue in two consolidated cases concerned a public housing authority and three of its tenants.  Bennington Housing Authority (BHA) appealed two trial court decisions dismissing ejectment claims against tenants, and granting summary judgment to tenants on two counterclaims: (1) that BHA failed to properly advise tenants of their right to request a grievance hearing when it billed them for repairs and fines; and (2) that BHA’s policy of fining tenants for open windows in the winter is prohibited under federal regulations. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that that BHA violated federal regulations for insufficient notice of the grievance procedure in both the termination of lease notices and the bills for maintenance and repair costs sent to tenants. The Court agreed with the trial court that BHA’s window-fine policy was prohibited by federal regulations.  BHA’s ejectment claims were thus dismissed, and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on tenants’ counterclaims was affirmed. View "Bennington Housing Authority v. Lake" on Justia Law

This litigation arose from the construction of a 143-unit condominium complex. Plaintiff Long Trail House Condominium Association appealed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant general contractor Engelberth Construction, Inc. on its complaint. The Association argued that the court erred in: (1) applying the economic loss rule to bar its negligence claim; and (2) dismissing its breach of implied warranty claim. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decision. View "Long Trail House Condominium Assoc. v. Engelberth Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants John and Margaret Toor appealed a decision of the Superior Court, Environmental Division, which upheld a notice of violation issued by the Town of Grand Isle Zoning Administrator for changing the use of their single-family home in Grand Isle without obtaining a zoning permit. On appeal, appellants argued that renting their home did not constitute a change in use under the Town's zoning ordinance, and accordingly they were not required to obtain a zoning permit prior to renting. Upon review of the applicable zoning ordinances and the parites' briefs on appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with Appellants and reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision. View "In re Toor & Toor Living Trust NOV" on Justia Law

Pro se Defendant Casey Hafford appealed a trial court's order that granted plaintiff Becky Nystrom's request to partition jointly owned property. Defendant argued that the court erred in rejecting his argument that he added Ms. Nystrom's name to the deed only in anticipation of marriage, in calculating the parties' respective interests in the property, in granting Ms. Nystrom's request for occupancy, and in declining to award him attorneys' fees in connection with Ms. Nystrom's father's Prompt Pay Act claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings concerning the partition itself, but reversed the trial court's ruling with respect to attorneys' fees and remanded for reconsideration of Mr. Hafford's fee petition pursuant to the Prompt Pay Act. View "Nystrom & Nystrom v. Hafford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Richard Daniels wanted to foreclose on a mortgage on two parcels of real property owned by defendant Elks Club of Hartford, Vermont. Defendant creditors, who include the Vermont Human Rights Commission, four individual women, and the Watts Law Firm, all have junior security interests in the property at issue and opposed foreclosure. Creditors appealed a trial court decision granting plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that plaintiff had standing to foreclose and was entitled to a judgment of foreclosure against all parties, and dismissing creditors' counterclaims. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision to include certain advances in the mortgage amount and the dismissal of the counterclaims. View "Daniels v. Elks Club of Hartford" on Justia Law

Barrett Holby, Grethe Holby, Kristin Holby, and Wegard Holby appealed orders of the Public Service Board which granted New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) authorizing the installation of a monopine telecommunications tower and associated facilities in Weston, and denying the Holbys' motion to alter the CPG order. The Holbys' properties either abut the property on which the proposed project is to be built, or are in close proximity to it. The Holbys' appeal was grounded on their claims that they were denied procedural due process in connection with the Board proceeding. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Holbys did not have constitutionally protected interests at stake, and therefore affirmed the Public Service Board's decision.

Defendant Vaillancourt Tree and Landscape Service appealed a trial court decision denying its post-trial motion for attorney's fees and costs under a theory of implied indemnification.  The issue on appeal was whether indemnity for attorney's fees is appropriate where a jury has found the putative indemnitor not liable in the underlying suit. Plaintiff Leonard Knappmiller owns a commercial property directly abutting a property owned by Defendants Joseph and Carolyn Bove.  This case grew from a dispute between Knappmiller and the Boves regarding the Boves' decision to cut down and remove a row of white cedar trees that allegedly straddled their property line.  The Boves hired Vaillancourt to cut and remove the trees.  Following the removal, Knappmiller filed a claim against the Boves for wrongful cutting of trees, alleging that the trees were located on Knappmiller's property and were removed without his consent.  Knappmiller later amended his complaint, adding Vaillancourt as a codefendant.  Vaillancourt consequently cross-claimed against the Boves for negligence, breach of contract, and indemnity.  Vaillancourt's cross-claim alleged that it had entered into a contract with the Boves, and that the Boves did not, but should have, informed Vaillancourt about tree ownership issues with Knappmiller before the trees were cut down and removed.  Vaillancourt's cross-claim demanded "judgment against the Boves . . . for indemnity, if Vaillancourt is found liable to Plaintiff and for any other damages suffered by Vaillancourt resulting from the Boves' negligence and breach of contract." Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court: "[e]ven if [the Court] were to dispense with a requirement of finding fault on behalf of the Boves, the jury specifically found neither the Boves nor Vaillancourt liable for any wrongful act.  The jury did not reach Vaillancourt's cross-claim against the Boves because Vaillancourt requested attorney's fees only if Vaillancourt was found liable in the underlying suit.  More importantly, Vaillancourt did not object to the jury charge or the special verdict form -- both of which unequivocally instructed the jury to reach Vaillancourt's indemnity claim only if Knappmiller prevailed.  [The Court] therefore cannot discern any support for an award of attorney's fees, other than Vaillancourt's conclusory allegations that the Boves knew the trees straddled the boundary line and had a duty to inform Vaillancourt of that fact."

Plaintiffs Russell and Mary Ann Rueger and John Moyers appealed a trial courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Natural Resources Board and the District #9 Environmental Commission of Vermont. The matter arose from an Access to Public Records Act request. The court concluded that certain records held by Defendants reflected deliberations of an agency acting in a quasi-judicial role, and those were exempt from disclosure. Plaintiffs argued on appeal that the court erred in interpreting the Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the documents in question fell within the plain language of the Act, and were indeed exempt. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

In 1995, Petitioner John Rhodes, a resident of the Town of Georgia, petitioned his local governing body, the selectboard, to clarify several issues surrounding two roads that bordered his land.  While this case began as a suit over the existence and use of two ancient roads, "it grew over time into a test of constitutional guarantees and a saga about abuse of power."  After almost fifteen years of litigation, including two side trips to federal court, the trial court entered judgment against the Town of Georgia.  The court found that Petitioner's request to access his land over town roads had been repeatedly and maliciously frustrated by the Town selectboard in an ongoing attempt to protect the value of a neighbor's property, a violation of Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution, the Common Benefits Clause.  The court concluded that Article 7 was self-executing and awarded monetary damages for the constitutional violation.  In this consolidated appeal, the Town of Georgia sought to overturn the trial court decision.  Upon careful review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of liability against the Town: the Court "underscore[d] the unique circumstances" of this case, finding that the "trial court's unchallenged findings describe a deliberate, decades-long course of discriminatory conduct by the Town so malicious and self-serving as to deny Rhodes his fundamental rights to due process and equal treatment under the Vermont Constitution.  Absent such egregious misconduct, and clear proof of the exacting elements necessary for relief, towns and local officials have no cause for concern about the myriad decisions made in the normal exercise of authority.  Failing to recognize a remedy in a case such as this, however, would undermine the constitutional principles that all Vermonters hold dear.  Vermont has consistently sustained its essence as one big small town by affirming and reinforcing the fundamental values that define it.  This decision affirms those values."

Defendant Randy J. Rouleau appealed the decision of the Washington Civil Division which held that Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee for the registered holders of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Security Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-CF2 (Wells Fargo), was entitled to enforce his personal guaranty of a promissory note secured by mortgages on five mobile home parks.  The civil division concluded that Wells Fargo could enforce the guaranty as the holder of the note under 9A V.S.A. § 3-301(i), which defines who may enforce a negotiable instrument.  Defendant argued that the court erred in ruling that Wells Fargo has standing to enforce the guaranty because Wells Fargo could not prove the chain of assignments from the original lender to itself and therefore that Wells Fargo, and not some third party, is the assignee of the guaranty.  Defendant also argued that the court erred in treating assignment of the note as sufficient to show assignment of the guaranty because the guaranty, in contrast to the note, is a separate contract that must be expressly assigned.  Finally, defendant argued that because Wells Fargo lacked standing to enforce the guaranty, the court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement action.  Based on the evidence presented, the Supreme Court could not conclude that the court's finding that Wells Fargo was assigned the note and mortgage was clearly erroneous.  Moreover, the court's finding on this point, essential to Wells Fargo's status as a holder, directly supports its conclusion that Wells Fargo has standing to enforce the guaranty.  Because Wells Fargo had standing, Defendant's final argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement action has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the civil division.