Case Title: State v. Therrien

Citation: 175 Vt. 342, 2003 VT 44, 830 A.2d 28

Docket Number: 2002-108

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Therrien (2002-108); 175 Vt. 342; 830 A.2d 28

2003 VT 44

[Filed 16-May-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 44

                                No. 2002-108

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Orleans Superior Court

  Carolyn Therrien and the Estate of 	         April Term, 2003
  Andrew Therrien

           v.

  Gregory Howe

  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Leslie C. Pratt, Montpelier, for Defendants/Third-Party
    Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  James E. Preston of Pierson, Wadhams, Quinn & Yates, Burlington, for
    Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, J., Cashman and Zimmerman, D.J., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.)
            and Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   After her husband, the late Andrew Therrien, was
  found to have violated Act 250, 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6108, and the Consumer
  Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 2451-2480g, in connection with septic and water
  systems located on his Salem Heights development in the Town of Derby,
  defendant Carolyn Therrien, executrix of her late husband's estate, brought
  a third-party claim against attorney Gregory Howe for the alleged
  negligence of Howe and his late partner in preparing the deeds that
  defendant claims were the cause of the estate's liability.  On Howe's
  motion, the trial court granted summary judgment in his favor.  Defendant
  appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court erroneously ruled that a client's
  intentional misconduct constitutes a complete defense to an attorney
  charged with negligence by the client, and (2) the trial court exceeded the
  scope of the summary judgment motion before it by granting the motion in
  part based on arguments not raised or addressed by the parties.  We reverse
  in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

       ¶  2.  In October 1975, Andrew Therrien was issued a land use permit
  pursuant to Act 250 allowing him to subdivide his 100-acre parcel of land
  into seventy-seven residential lots.  Therrien proceeded to sell most of
  these lots, but failed to disclose to prospective purchasers the conditions
  of the land use permit that encumbered the lots.  More importantly,
  Therrien failed to comply with the septic and well water system conditions
  in the permit.  As a result, some residents had little or no water
  pressure, sewage effluent surfaced and stagnated, and water wells were
  eventually contaminated with fecal waste.

       ¶  3.  In March 1983, the State notified Therrien that there were
  "several serious violations" of the land use permit on his subdivision that
  needed to be resolved.  Thereafter, Therrien agreed in writing to a
  voluntary compliance schedule.  Therrien, however, never complied.  In
  fact, as the trial court found, Therrien continued to sell lots with permit
  violations without disclosing the land use permit even after he had signed
  the voluntary compliance schedule.

       ¶  4.  The State subsequently brought an action against Therrien in
  October 1985, alleging violations of Act 250 for his installation of water
  and septic systems that did not comply with the land use permit, and
  violations of the Consumer Fraud Act for failing to notify prospective
  purchasers that the use of the lots was encumbered by conditions contained
  in the permit.
   
       ¶  5.  In July 1991, the trial court issued an opinion citing
  Therrien for numerous violations of his Act 250 land use permit,
  specifically finding that Therrien's failure to abide by the terms of his
  permit and to fulfill the requirements of the voluntary compliance schedule
  was "willful and intentional."  The Act 250 violations included:
  installation of community water systems not allowed under his permit;
  installation of improper individual septic systems, community septic
  systems, and collection sewers; failure to install appropriate septic
  systems as required by the permit; failure to comply with the isolation
  distances for water wells and lines from septic systems; failure to show
  land purchasers the permit and associated documentation; and failure to
  seek appropriate amendments to the permit.  The court also found that
  Therrien had committed "unfair or deceptive acts and practices" prohibited
  by the Consumer Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2453, in selling subdivision lots not
  in compliance with the land use permit.  The court decided not to assess
  punitive damages and civil penalties, but ordered Therrien "to correct the
  problems he ha[d] created and . . . to obtain the appropriate governmental
  approvals for the benefit of the people who live in his subdivision."  In
  its order, the court delineated Therrien's specific liabilities, which
  consisted primarily of performing all work necessary to bring the water and
  septic systems in the subdivision into compliance with Act 250 and
  conforming all deeds of the present lot owners to the land use permit.

       ¶  6.  Since Andrew Therrien had died between the time the trial ended
  and the date that the decision was issued, the court entered the judgment
  order substituting Therrien's estate and defendant as executrix as parties. 
  We affirmed this judgment in State v. Therrien, 161 Vt. 26,