Case Title: In re Villeneuve

Citation: 167 Vt. 450, 709 A.2d 1067

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-02-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Villeneuve  (96-640); 167 Vt. 450; 709 A.2d 1067

[Filed 6-Feb-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. 96-640

In re David Villeneuve                       Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Chittenden Superior Court

                                             December Term, 1997

Alden T. Bryan, J.

       Michael Rose, St. Albans, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       F. Brian Joslin of Theriault & Joslin, Montpelier, and Michael A.
  Fitzhugh and Edward P. O'Leary of Fitzhugh & Associates, Boston,
  Massachusetts, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.  Defendant Ford Motor Co., appeals from a ruling of the
  Chittenden Superior Court which overturned a decision of the New Motor
  Vehicle Arbitration Board because of the participation in it of board
  members who did not attend the evidentiary hearing. The arbitration board
  decision found that a Ford truck which plaintiff, David Villeneuve,
  purchased new from a local Ford dealer was not a  lemon  and plaintiff was
  not entitled to a refund.  Defendant argues that the court decision was
  erroneous under the very narrow standard of review applicable to these
  proceedings.  Plaintiff argues, by way of cross-appeal, that the court
  erred in remanding for a new hearing because he is entitled to relief as a
  matter of law. We affirm.

       This proceeding was brought under the New Motor Vehicle Arbitration
  Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 4170-81, commonly known as the lemon law,  which was
  passed in order to facilitate an expeditious and inexpensive resolution of
  automobile warranty problems.   Pecor v. General Motors Corp., 150 Vt. 23,
  24,