Case Title: In re Bill

Citation: 168 Vt. 439, 724 A.2d 444

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Bill  (97-203); 168 Vt. 439; 724 A.2d 444

[Filed 30-Oct-1998]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 97-203

In re Ruth Bill                               Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Addison Superior Court

                                              March Term, 1998

Matthew I. Katz, J.

       Christopher D. Roy of Downs Rachlin & Martin, PC, Burlington, for
  Inervenor-Appellant.

       John W. Whitcomb of Neuse, Smity & Venman, P.C., Middlebury, for
  Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and
          Corsones, D.J., Specially Assigned

       AMESTOY, C.J.   This appeal arises from a decision of the Addison
  Superior Court granting Petitioner Ruth Bill's request to  declare legally
  discontinued a segment of old highway within the Town of New Haven, a
  portion of which runs across her property. Intervenor Thomas Fisher, whose
  undeveloped parcel of land abuts a segment of the old highway, contends
  that the court erred in concluding that there was statutory authorization
  for a 1926 order by the New Haven selectboard purportedly discontinuing the
  segment at issue.  We agree and, thus, reverse.

       The disputed highway segment was originally laid out two centuries
  ago, but with the exception of the trees which line the route and evidence
  of old bridgework, it is not maintained as a road today.   The road segment
  is located wholly within the Town of New Haven, and runs northerly from the
  intersection of Route 17 and Field Days Road, along the western edge of
  Fisher's  parcel, then over Bill's, finally intersecting with Maple Street 
  Extension near a point

 

  where that road turns into Hallock Road.  The parties in this case are
  neighboring landowners.  Fisher argues that when he bought his twenty-eight
  acre parcel of property in 1979, he was assured that it was accessible by
  way of the old town road.  He contends that the property would be
  landlocked and undevelopable without the highway.  Around the time of his
  purchase, Fisher asked the New Haven selectboard about the legal status of
  the highway segment.  The board informed Fisher that "highway mapping 
  since 1931 has never acknowledged existence of [the disputed highway
  segment]" and that Fisher bore the burden to prove that  the roadway
  exists.

       In 1995, Fisher sought to convey the parcel to his daughter and
  son-in-law so they could build a home.  The Town Zoning Administrator
  denied Fisher's application for a building permit  based on the
  Administrator's determination that the highway  segment had been
  discontinued, and therefore the parcel lacked the necessary road access. 
  Fisher again approached the selectboard to confirm the status of the
  highway, and as a result, the historical origins of the road came to light.

       The road was devised in 1798 when Vermont's General  Assembly adopted
  "An Act Appointing A Committee to Lay Out, Alter  and Straighten the Road
  from Vergennes Through Castleton to Bennington," pursuant to which a
  committee of three individuals  undertook "to view, survey, lay out, and
  alter or turn said road  from Vergennes, through Waltham, Weybridge,
  Cornwall, Whiting, Sudbury, Hubbardton, Castleton, Poultney, Wells, and to
  Colonel Elisha Averill's in Pawlet." The resulting highway, referred to  by
  the parties as the "Legislative Highway," was laid out by the appointed
  committee in 1799, and a survey of the highway's course  through New Haven
  was recorded in the town records.

       In 1812, the New Haven selectboard laid out the town's  portion of a
  highway leading from Vergennes to Weybridge -- the so called "1812 Highway"
  -- which tracked the same course as the Legislative Highway through the
  town.  A survey for the 1812 Highway was recorded in New Haven's town
  records.

       On this evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the road no longer
  appeared on maps, the

 

  New Haven selectboard concluded in November 1995 that the disputed highway
  segment remained a legal highway and issued Fisher a permit to construct
  road access to his property along the highway's right-of-way.  Upon notice
  of the permit's issuance, Bill employed a surveyor who discovered in the
  town land records a 1926 order of the New Haven selectboard purportedly
  discontinuing the highway segment.  The notation read:  "Highway Closed. 
  The road leading from J.S. Marshall's to  the residence of C.C. Tier was
  officially closed by the Selectmen W.H. Patterson and George Palmer."(FN1)
  The parties agree that the  1926 notation refers to the disputed highway
  segment.  Following discovery of the 1926 order, the selectboard held
  hearings in late 1995 and early 1996 to address the highway's status.  In 
  January of 1996, the board concluded that the disputed segment remains a
  five rod, class four highway.

       Bill petitioned the Superior Court, pursuant to 19 V.S.A. §§ 701 -
  819, to overturn and vacate the selectboard's 1995 and  1996 orders
  respecting the disputed segment.  In response to Fisher's motion that the
  petition be considered pursuant to  V.R.C.P. 75, the court ruled that it
  would treat Bill's petition  as a declaratory judgment action to determine
  whether the highway exists, focusing specifically on whether the 1926
  action by the New Haven selectboard constituted a valid discontinuance
  under the General Laws of 1917, the law then applicable.  The court
  concluded that the 1926 board acted within its authority.  Fisher appeals.

       The rule consistently applied in Vermont has been that "[t]he
  procedure to be followed in laying out or discontinuing a  highway is
  wholly statutory and the method prescribed must be substantially complied
  with or the proceedings will be void."  In  re Mattison, 120 Vt. 459, 462,