Case Title: Town of Lunenburg v. Unorganized Towns and Gores of Essex County

Citation: 180 Vt. 578, 2006 VT 71, 908 A.2d 424

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Town of Lunenburg v. Unorganized Towns & Gores of Essex County (2005-165); 180 Vt. 578; 908 A.2d 424

2006 VT 71

[Filed 24-Jul-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 71

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-165

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2005


  Town of Lunenburg, et al.            }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }         Essex Superior Court
                                       }  
  Supervisor and Board of Governors    }
  of the Unorganized Towns and Gores   }         DOCKET NO. 63-10-00 Excv
  of Essex County                      }

                                                 Trial Judge: Walter M. 
                                                              Morris, Jr.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiffs, several of the thirteen organized towns in Essex
  County, sued the supervisor and Board of Governors of the six unorganized
  towns and gores of Essex County (UTGs), seeking a declaratory judgment on
  the disposition of a substantial sum of money in a UTG savings account.  On
  appeal, defendants challenge the superior court's order requiring them to
  distribute the bulk of the funds to the organized towns of Essex County. 
  The trial court held that defendants' view that the statutes that set up
  the funding mechanism for the UTGs allowed the supervisor to retain the
  funds indefinitely conflicted with the plain language of the statutes. 
  Accordingly, the court ordered distribution of the funds to the thirteen
  organized towns of Essex County.  We affirm the judgment of the trial
  court.

       ¶  2.  The six UTGs are Averill, Avery's Gore, Ferdinand, Lewis,
  Warner's Grant, and Warren's Gore.  Largely uninhabited, they occupy a
  contiguous area in Essex County of approximately 103,000 acres and were
  home to twenty-four registered voters and three schoolchildren in 2000. 
        
       ¶  3.  The State controlled the UTGs' finances prior to January 1,
  1969.  In 1968, the Legislature created the position of supervisor of the
  UTGs and shifted control of the UTGs' finances to the supervisor.  1967,
  No. 331 (Adj. Sess.), §§ 1 & 3 (eff. Jan. 1, 1969).  Under the new
  financial system created by Act 331, an annual tax was assessed "upon the
  grand list of all unorganized towns and gores in Essex county" at a rate of
  three dollars.  32 V.S.A. § 4981. (FN1)  The supervisor was directed to
  meet the UTGs' expenses, including the salary of and the reasonable
  expenses incurred by the supervisor, from the § 4981 tax revenues.  Id. §
  4982.  Finally, the Legislature required the supervisor to close the UTGs'
  books each year by distributing any revenue left after expenses to the
  organized towns of Essex County, as follows:       

    During the month of July each year, upon adequate provision being
    made for the expenses of all unorganized towns and gores in Essex
    county, any surplus revenue assessed under section 4981 and
    received during the preceding calendar year shall be distributed
    by the supervisor for the unorganized towns and gores of Essex
    county to each organized town and city within that county in equal
    amounts up to and including $300.00 for each organized town and
    city.  Any surplus revenue then remaining shall be distributed to
    each organized town and city in Essex county in the proportion
    which the population of that town or city bears to the population
    of all the organized towns and cities of the county, as shown in
    the most recent United States census.

  32 V.S.A. § 4983.  Whether and how to apply this provision to the disputed
  savings account is the crux of this case.

       ¶  4.  The trial court found the following relevant facts.  The
  savings account at issue first appeared in the UTGs' books in 1971, which
  reflected a $450 interest payment into the account, resulting in a total
  balance of $40,450.  The original supervisor would later tell his successor
  that the account was "for emergencies."  While the account witnessed some
  activity early on, it has been entirely dormant since 1975, at which time
  its balance was about $52,000.  The account continued to accrue interest,
  however, and, as of October 25, 2000, the balance had increased to
  $174,021.24.

       ¶  5.  An audit in 2000 confirmed the existence of the savings
  account, and plaintiffs sued for a declaration of rights with respect to
  the funds in the account as of May 18, 2000, the effective date of the
  changes in §§ 4981-4982 and repeal of § 4983.  1999, No. 139 (Adj. Sess.),
  § 5.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The trial
  court denied defendants' motion and granted plaintiffs' motion in part. 
  After resolving issues relating to surplus revenue for fiscal year 1999 and
  interest rates, the court entered judgment on April 4, 2005, ordering the
  UTGs to pay each of the thirteen organized towns its pro-rata share of the
  savings account principal and interest, a sum from a checking account plus
  interest, and prejudgment interest.  Defendants appealed, principally
  asserting: (1) the trial court misconstrued § 4983 and failed to accord
  proper deference to the supervisor by treating the money in the savings
  account as revenue eligible for distribution to the organized towns; (2)
  the statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' claim to any money that was
  in the savings account more than six years before the suit was commenced;
  (3) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award money to organized towns
  other than plaintiffs; and (4) the repeal of § 4983 obviated any
  requirement for distribution after May 18, 2000. (FN2)  We reject each
  argument and affirm.
                                                          
       ¶  6.  We review summary judgment orders de novo and apply the same
  standard as the trial court.  Hardwick Recycling & Salvage, Inc. v. Acadia
  Ins. Co., 2004 VT 124, ¶ 14, 177 Vt. 421,