Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Lisa and Thomas Ketchum as trustees for the Saddlebrook Farm and North Farm Trusts appealed the Town of Dorset's decision to reclassify a town road from a class 3 to a class 4 highway.  Plaintiffs argued that the court erred in reviewing the selectboard's reclassification using a deferential standard instead of a de novo procedure involving appointment of a panel of commissioners.  In the alternative, Plaintiffs contended that, even under a deferential standard, the court's decision was erroneous because the findings were not supported by the evidence and they were denied an opportunity to supplement the record on appeal.  Plaintiffs own property that is serviced by a town highway known as Upper Kirby Hollow Road.  There is one residence on the road, and the remaining properties are undeveloped.  Some of the property is under a conservation easement and open to the public for recreational activities.  In October 2008, the Town provided notice that it intended to consider altering the classification of certain town highways, including a 0.55 mile section of Kirby Hollow Road.  The selectboard made a site visit to the property.  The Town also held a public meeting and heard from interested parties.  Plaintiffs attended and spoke against reclassification.  Other members of the public also opposed reclassification and questioned whether it would have an impact on the public's ability to use the conserved property.  The Town road foreman supported reclassification and testified that the road is dangerous to maintain and snow plow because it is narrow and steep.  In December 2008, the Town issued a written decision, finding, among other things, that: the road's width is too narrow to allow two vehicles to safely pass one another or for access for emergency vehicles; Town snow removal vehicles have slid off the road causing danger to the vehicles and impairing snow removal of other roads; and the cost to improve the road is prohibitive.  The Town also found that the road services only one seasonal residence with limited winter usage.  The Town concluded that continuing summer maintenance and winter plowing did not serve the public good of the Town and reclassified the road. The trial court concluded that there was no statutory authority providing for review of the reclassification and therefore the only jurisdiction for the appeal was pursuant to Rule 75 in the nature of certiorari.  Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while Plaintiffs argued that their opinions and evidence should have been weighed more heavily, the selectboard did not err in resolving the competing considerations in the manner that it did.  The decision was within the Town's authority and not erroneous. The Court affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Landlord Downtown Barre Development appealed a trial court's denial of its request for declaratory relief. Landlord argued that Tenant GU Markets of Barre, LLC established a corporate structure that entitled it to terminate the parties' commercial lease.  Landlord claimed the trial court erred by not considering Tenant's conduct when deciding whether tenancy under the terms of their agreement could be terminated.  Upon review of the lease and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that the essence of Landlord's claim was for "anticipatory repudiation." Even assuming Landlord could rely on this common law principle, Tenant had not indicated to Landlord an intent to breach, nor did Tenant commit an act to render it "unable to perform." Accordingly, because the language of the lease was clear and unambiguous and Tenant's conduct did not constitute notice as required by the plain language of the lease, the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that landlord was not entitled to terminate the agreement on this ground.

Plaintiff Linda Nordlund appealed a grant of summary judgment by the Superior Court, Environmental Division (Environmental Court) in favor of Defendants Elizabeth Van Nostrand, and Mark and Nancy Van Nostrand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff owned property that abuts the Van Nostrand property. The Van Nostrand property runs behind and is contiguous with both the Nordlund and front parcels. The back parcel does not border a public road. These parcels have been the subject of numerous proceedings. In a 2006 quiet title action, the superior court determined that the Nordlund parcel was burdened by an existing eighteen-foot right-of-way benefiting the back parcel. In 2004, Defendants applied for a zoning permit to build a house on the back parcel. The zoning administrator originally granted the permit, but Plaintiff appealed the decision to the local review board. The Board reversed, finding that the Nordlund right-of-way did not meet locality's rule that requires a fifty-foot-wide right-of-way in order to develop landlocked property. Defendants appealed that decision to the Environmental Court. In the course of the proceedings, Defendant Elizabeth Van Nostrand granted defendants Mark and Nancy Van Nostrand a fifty-foot-wide right-of-way across her property (the front parcel) that connected the back parcel to the closest road without crossing onto the Nordlund parcel. Defendants applied for a new zoning permit citing the Van Nostrand right-of-way as the means of complying. The Board approved the permit and Defendants subsequently constructed a house on the back parcel. This case stems from what Plaintiff claimed is a misuse of the Nordlund right-of-way to access the now completed home on the back parcel. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that this use violated the prior zoning decisions that originally disallowed the right-of-way as a basis for development of the back parcel. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Environmental Court had no jurisdiction because there was no violation of a zoning decision respecting Defendants' property or use of the rights-of-way in question. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's case.

This case stems from a dispute over the 1973 William C. Alden Trust (the Trust) benefiting the Grantor's second wife Nancy Alden, his two children by Nancy, and his three children from his first marriage. Todd Alden and Julia Alden Dee, two of Grantor's children by his first marriage, alleged that Nancy in her capacity as trustee, acted fraudulently and in violation of her fiduciary duties in her administration of the Trust and invaded trust principal through self-dealing, concealment, and misrepresentations. They sought to hold Nancy and her two children liable for damages resulting from the alleged improprieties. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted that of the Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, Estate of Nancy B. Alden. Julia Dee and Todd Alden appealed. The sum of Defendants' arguments to the Supreme Court contended that there were multiple disputed issues of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment. Upon review of the lengthy history of the Trust and the parties' litigation pertaining to the Trust, the Court found that Defendants' simply failed to prove their case: "[a] lack of sufficient evidence on one side does not mean a disputed issue of fact remains." The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Trust.

Appellants Shenandoah, LLC, David Shlansky, Ting Chang, and other entities and individuals, appealed the Environmental Court's summary judgment decision upholding an "Act 250" jurisdictional opinion. Appellants have a variety of overlapping interests. Mr. Shlansky created an irrevocable trust (Trust) to benefit his and his wife Chang's children. As settler of the Trust, Mr. Shlansky contributed the property that is the subject of the underlying jurisdictional opinion. The Trust has an ownership stake in various companies that have engaged in land-development activities in the relevant jurisdictional area. Shenandoah, LLC, one such created entity, sought to build a ten-unit residential housing project. In August 2008, Shenandoah requested a jurisdictional opinion to determine if the project required an "Act 250" permit. In a September 2008 decision, the district coordinator found that the project required an Act 250 permit because it involved the construction of a housing project with ten or more units. Appellants appealed portions of this decision to the Environmental Court. The court upheld the district coordinator's jurisdictional opinion. The court concluded that Mr. Shlansky and Ms. Chang benefited from the Trust's land-development activities so the Trust's development activities were attributable to them personally. Appellants challenged this conclusion on appeal. As support for their position, they pointed to the affidavits filed by Mr. Shlansky, Ms. Chang and "the legal existence of the Trust, which is irrevocable." Upon review of the lower court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Court's decision. As the Environmental Court concluded, benefit to the parents rendered them "persons" affiliated with subdivisions and development previously undertaken by entities owned or affiliated with the Trust as defined by Act 250.

A group neighbors (Neighbors-Appellants) in the Town of Dorset appealed an Environmental Court decision that granted Applicant Bradford Tylerâs application for a zoning permit for the construction of a self-storage facility in the Dorset Village Commercial District. Appellants contend that the court erred in determining the rental storage units to be an authorized land use within the applicable Dorset zoning district. Applicant Tyler owns and resides on a 5.6-acre property located in the Village Commercial District (VC District) of Dorset. He filed for a zoning permit to construct a self-storage facility on his property. The Town Planning Commission issued written approval of applicantâs site development plan. Following this, the Town Zoning Administrator issued a zoning permit. Interested neighbors appealed to the Dorset Zoning Board of Adjustment, contending that applicantâs proposed self-storage facility is not a âretail sales/rentalsâ use, as required by the townâs Zoning Bylaws for development in the VC District. Neighbors, in response to applicant questioning the validity of a decision rendered by less than a majority of the Board, appealed to the Environmental Court. They asserted that, regardless of the majority vote issue, the earlier approval by the Zoning Administrator was erroneous and should be voided. Applicant cross-appealed, arguing that the Boardâs denial was invalid and that the proposed facility was a permitted use in the VC District. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the question of whether a storage facility was permitted. The Environmental Court granted applicantâs motion and denied Neighborsâ, holding that the proposed use was permissible as a âretail rental.â Upon review of the lower court's record and the applicable zoning statutes, the Supreme Court acknowledged the conflict created by a plain reading of the definition of "retail" in the statute: "[d]efining âretailâ in terms of sales arguably creates a conflict when used to define âretail rentalsâ . .. Using the common understanding of the words involved, and in the context of the overall scheme and purpose of the VC District, it is clear that the Bylawsâ drafters intended âretail sales/rentalsâ to include only residential and small-scale commercial establishments trading in services or in goods, for sale and for rent, as opposed to renting storage space as applicant proposes." Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the Environmental Court.

Defendants Charles and Hubert Lovell appealed a grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff Duane Amsden. In 1997, Phillip Lovell, father of Charles and Hubert, executed a will appointing Charles and his stepson Duane as co-executors. He also executed a power of attorney naming Charles as his attorney-in-fact. The principal asset of the senior Lovell's estate was a farm. In 2003, Philip Lovell's wife Zada quitclaimed her interest in the farm to her husband. Then, Charles, acting as attorney-in-fact, executed a quitclaim deed conveying the farm from his father to Hubert and himself for no consideration. Several of the Lovell's other children and stepchildren, including Plaintiff, signed a consent statement dated May 31, 2003, approving the transfer. In 2008, following the death of Zada Lovell, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in the probate court claiming the transfer of the farm to defendants was invalid under state law, and sought to establish the estate of Phillip Lovell as the farm's rightful owner. The probate court issued a declaratory judgment order in favor of Defendants, finding that the quitclaim transfer was valid because the language of the POA failed to restrict defendant Charles Lovell's power to gift the property to himself or others. The superior court reversed, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the amended POA statute prohibited an attorney-in-fact from making gifts of the principal's property to himself or others unless the POA "explicitly" granted such authority. Defendants appealed. Upon review of the POA and records of the Lovell estate, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court order. The Court found that Charles Lovell could not, pursuant to his powers as his father's attorney-in-fact, transfer title of his father's farm to himself and his brother, Hubert Lovell, where the power of attorney failed to explicitly grant the power to make such a gift.

This case concerned the use of a hilltop cemetery on a farm in Hartland, Vermont. The petitioner, Harold Guite, now owns the farm property. He claimed that the cemetery plot was owned by heirs of the Aldrich family, who settled the property as a farm in approximately 1775 and remained there until selling the farm in 1853. Respondent Jerome King's family purchased the farm property in 1950 and owned it until 1983. Prior to selling the property, Respondent buried the cremated remains of his parents in the hilltop cemetery. Petitioner was aware of the cemetery and its location when he bought the property. Petitioner filed suit for a declaratory judgment regarding his rights in the hilltop cemetery. Petitioner wanted to remove the cemetery and return the plot to "private farm property." Respondent claimed that the Aldrich family reserved only an easement in the cemetery plot. Thus, he contended title to the plot remained with the farm so that he could use it to bury his parents, and, by the deed to the property and by operation of Vermont law, the remains could not be moved. The trial court adopted Respondent's theory and denied the petition. Upon review of the trial court records, the Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner's theory was correct and reversed the decision against him. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant Stowe Mountain Club, LLC (SMC) appealed a judgment in favor of Plaintiff David Smalley. SMC and Mr. Smalley were neighbors. The trial court found that portions of a golf course built and operated by SMC violated certain restrictive covenants in Mr. Smalleyâs deed. On appeal, SMC argued that the court misinterpreted the covenants in Mr. Smalleyâs deed, and as a result, refused to admit certain evidence or allow for additional discovery to allow the court to fully consider the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court record, and found that the parties moved for summary judgment before the exact nature of issues concerning the chain-of-title and restrictive covenants could be fully developed. The Court felt the decision was therefore premature and reversed the trial courtâs grant of summary judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Homeowners Kenneth and Larissa Trinder filed a declaratory judgment action to establish Defendant Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Companyâs (Company) obligation to defend or indemnify them regarding an encroachment of their septic system onto their neighborâs property. The Trinders purchased the land in question in 2005. In conjunction with the sale, they purchased title insurance from the Company to defend themselves against situations that might make their title unmarketable or where they would be forced to remove an existing structure on their property because it extends onto someone elseâs. The Trindersâ neighbor was the Mount Holly Community Historical Museum. The Museum called the Trinders to inform them that the Museum intended to expand its facility, and it wanted to reach a settlement with the Trinders that implicated the use of their septic system. The Trinders perceived the Museumâs call (and subsequent letter) as a threat to their title, and contacted their real estate closing attorney, who filed a claim to the Company on their behalf. The Company responded that the matter didnât impact their title. In September, 2008, the Trinders filed suit against the Company seeking to protect its right to have the septic system on the museumâs land, based on the âforced removal and marketabilityâ provisions of the title insurance. Following a bench trial, the court ordered judgment in favor of the Company. The court concluded a plain reading of the insurance policy showed there was no coverage under the forced removal clause, and that the marketability provision did not apply. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courtâs reasoning and affirmed its order on appeal.