Case Title: Guibord v. Scholtz

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Guibord v. Scholtz (2004-372); 179 Vt. 623; 895 A.2d 202

2006 VT 22

[Filed 01-Mar-2006]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 22

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-372

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2005

  Peter Guibord, Co-Executor of the      }     APPEALED FROM:
  Estate of Richard Guibord              }
                                         }
       v.                                }     Grand Isle Superior Court
                                         }     
  Joyce Scholtz                          }
                                         }     DOCKET NO. 35-9-99 Gicv

                                               Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1.     Plaintiff Peter Guibord appeals from the superior court's
  judgment in favor of defendant Joyce Scholtz denying the Guibords a
  prescriptive easement to cross over the Scholtzes' land.  Plaintiff
  contends the superior court's conclusion that the Guibords' use of the
  Scholtzes' land was permissive rested on factual findings that relied on
  inadmissible evidence and ignored relevant admissible evidence.  Plaintiff
  also contends the superior court erred in failing to presume the existence
  of the Guibords' alleged easement in the absence of admissible evidence to
  the contrary.  We affirm.
        
       ¶ 2.     Since 1916, the Guibords have owned a small island ("Guibord
  Island") off the northern tip of Grand Isle.(FN1)  In 1921, the Scholtzes
  acquired title to property at the tip of Grand Isle, just south of Guibord
  Island.  A private road runs across land to the south of the Guibord and
  Scholtz parcels and ends at the northern tip of the Scholtz property. 
  Plaintiff's family has often used the private road as a means of access to
  Guibord Island, driving to the northern end of the road, parking cars by a
  docking area, and using boats to transport people and supplies to the
  island.  In 1989, the Scholtzes, through counsel, sent a letter to the
  Guibords demanding that plaintiff's family end its practice of crossing the
  Scholtz property and parking cars there, or else begin paying a $700 fee
  per season.  The Guibords responded that they had obtained a prescriptive
  easement over the Scholtz property that allowed them to continue using the
  road and parking, and they continued to use the property without paying a
  fee.  In September 1999, defendant served plaintiff with a notice against
  trespass.  In response, plaintiff filed an action in the superior court
  seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  Along with the complaint,
  plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
  injunction allowing the Guibords to continue using the Scholtz property. 
  The superior court granted the temporary restraining order and scheduled a
  hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction for October 1999.  During
  the hearing, the parties agreed that the Guibords could continue to cross
  the Scholtz property until the resolution of the trial.

       ¶ 3.     A bench trial was held in March 2004, during which members of
  both families testified as to the extent and nature of the Guibords' use of
  the Scholtz property.  Due to her poor health at the time of the trial,
  defendant testified only by deposition.  In addition to testimony,
  plaintiff presented documents, photographs, and films purporting to
  demonstrate the Guibords' use of the Scholtz property from the time the
  family acquired Guibord Island.  In July 2004, the superior court granted
  judgment to defendant, concluding that the Guibords had not acquired a
  prescriptive easement because their use of the Scholtz property was not
  hostile for any continuous fifteen-year period.  The court found that "the
  Guibords had permission to cross the Scholtz property during all relevant
  times that members of their family owned the Island before 1989."  The
  court based this conclusion primarily on its finding that "[i]n light of
  all the evidence and considering the demeanor of the witnesses, . . . the
  testimony of [the Scholtzes] was credible and the testimony of [the
  Guibords] that permission was never given was not credible."  This appeal
  followed.

       ¶ 4.     Plaintiff first argues that the superior court's factual
  findings were not supported by sufficient admissible evidence.  Plaintiff
  finds fault with three elements of the superior court's findings: (1) the
  court's statement that it found the Scholtzes' testimony more credible than
  the Guibords'; (2) the court's disregard of the Guibords' documentary
  evidence; and (3) the court's reliance on inadmissible evidence from
  defendant's deposition testimony.  We review the court's findings of fact
  for clear error.  Mizzi v. Mizzi, 2005 VT 120, ¶ 7, 16 Vt. L. Wk. 379
  (mem.).  "Findings will be sustained on appeal unless, viewing the evidence
  in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, there is no credible
  evidence to support the findings."  Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Lysobey, 2005
  VT 55, ¶ 8, 16 Vt. L. Wk. 210,