Case Title: Smith v. Town of Derby

Citation: 170 Vt. 553, 742 A.2d 757

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Smith v. Town of Derby; 170 Vt. 553; 742 A.2d 757

[Filed 18-Oct-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-348

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999

Bruce and Pauline Smith 	       }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Orleans Superior Court
	                               }	
	                               }
Town of Derby, et al.	               }	DOCKET NO. 223-11-96Oscv

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

	
       Plaintiffs, Bruce and Pauline Smith, appeal from a decision of the
  Orleans Superior Court  holding that a bridge to plaintiffs' property and
  home had not become a town road by virtue of  dedication and acceptance. 
  Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that as a matter of law, the Town of Derby  has
  accepted the bridge as a public road, and that the trial court relied on
  erroneous factors in  reaching a contrary conclusion.  We affirm.

       The bridge in question spans the Johns River and allows automobile
  access only to  plaintiffs' property.  It was built in the 1950's, but the
  court was unable to find who built it.   Through its road commissioner, the
  Town provided some maintenance of the bridge in the  1960's, and in 1973,
  the selectmen approved rebuilding the bridge at town expense.  Minutes of 
  a selectmen's meeting in August, 1973 state that the "present board feels
  that a precedent has  been created, therefore the selectmen will honor the
  past decisions and will rebuild and maintain  the bridge in the future." 
  The minutes add: "This in no way obligate the town to maintain the  drive
  leading to the bridge summer or winter."  The Town repaired and rebuilt the
  bridge on a  number of occasions since 1993, but refused to rebuild it in
  1996, when the bridge sank and  water ran over it, making it unsafe for
  vehicle travel.

       In refusing to repair the bridge, the Town noted that (1) it served
  only one residential lot;  and (2) the road over the bridge was entirely
  private from its intersection with a town highway to  the bridge, and
  thereafter until it reached plaintiffs' home.  Plaintiffs maintained the
  road,  including plowing it and the bridge, during the winter months.  The
  bridge did not appear on the  map of town roads.  The court relied on these
  facts in ruling that the Town had not accepted the  bridge as part of the
  town highway system, and, therefore, was not legally obligated to rebuild
  it.

       The issue of whether there has been a dedication and acceptance is a
  mixed question of fact  and law.  See Town of Springfield v. Newton, 115
  Vt. 39, 47, 50 A.2d 605, 610 (1947).  The 

 

  fact-finder must determine the "essential facts" and the court must decide
  whether those facts  meet the legal standard.  Id.  In this case, the
  superior court was the finder of fact and made the  determination whether
  those facts met the legal standard for dedication and acceptance.

       To make a road a public highway by dedication and acceptance, there
  must be both a  dedication by the private owner and an acceptance of that
  dedication by the town.  See Okemo  Mountain, Inc. v. Town of Ludlow, 164
  Vt. 447, 454-55,