Case Title: Town of Rutland v. City of Rutland

Citation: 170 Vt. 87, 743 A.2d 585

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Town of Rutland v. City of Rutland (97-430); 170 Vt. 87; 743 A.2d 585

[Filed 22-Oct-1999]

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. 97-430

Town of Rutland	                                 Supreme Court

	                                         On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Rutland Superior Court

City of Rutland	                                 April Term, 1999
East Mountain Land Company and
John A. Russell Corp.

Alden T. Bryan, J.

       Mark L. Sperry and Kevin E. Brown of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
  Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Paul S. Kulig and Katherine G. Bulchanan (On the Brief) of Keyser,
  Crowley, Carroll, George & Meub, P.C., Rutland, for Defendants-Appellants.

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

       JOHNSON, J.   Defendants East Mountain Company and John A. Russell
  Corporation  appeal the superior court's ruling that a water line under
  Gleason Road in the Town of Rutland is  the property of the Town.  John A.
  Russell Corp. (Russell) was the general contractor for a  development owned
  by East Mountain Company and installed the water line at issue.  After a 
  dispute with the Town over whether it would compensate Russell/East
  Mountain for the line,  East Mountain agreed to sell the water line to the
  City of Rutland.  The trial court declared the  line belonged to the Town. 
  We affirm.

       In 1985, Congregational House, Inc. began construction of ninety-nine
  condominium 

 

  units on forty-four acres located in the Town, on the north side of Gleason
  Road.  Russell was  engaged as the general contractor.  Congregational
  House abandoned the project in 1986.  East  Mountain Company, owned by the
  individual John A. Russell, bought the land and continued to  develop the
  parcel.  Russell Corp. remained the general contractor, and the development
  was  named Heritage Hill.

       The Town of Rutland completely surrounds the City of Rutland.  Gleason
  Road runs east  from Route 4 in the City of Rutland.  It is in the City for
  approximately one-quarter mile and  then enters the Town.  The Heritage
  Hill development is in the Town.  The water line that  services Heritage
  Hill runs along the south side of Gleason Road from Route 4 in the City and 
  crosses into the Town along with Gleason Road.  At the entrance to Heritage
  Hill, the line  crosses under Gleason Road into the development.  The line
  carries water from the City water  system.

       In September 1986, Russell obtained permission from the City to
  install the water line  within the City's right-of-way along Route 4 and
  Gleason Road.  The agreement stated "the line  w[ill] be built . . . and
  prepared according to the plans prepared by Aronson & Olson, Inc. and  will
  become a City water main once it's completed."  The City and Russell agreed
  to transfer the  line without compensation, in exchange for the permission
  to install it in the City right-of-way.

       This case concerns the parallel agreement made with the Town of
  Rutland.  No one  disputes that there was an agreement to have the Town
  take over the Gleason Road water line on  completion.  Russell, however,
  maintains that the Town agreed to pay compensation for the line,  and the
  Town denies it.  As Russell did not quitclaim the line, East Mountain chose
  to 

 

  resolve the dispute in November, 1992, by signing a contract with the City
  of Rutland purporting  to transfer the disputed section of line (within the
  Town boundaries) to the City.  East Mountain  received no compensation at
  the time but would receive "hook-on" fees from users who tapped  into the
  line after the date of the contract.  These fees would be paid almost
  solely by Town  residents.

       In May 1993, the Town filed suit to have the disputed section of line
  declared free of any  right, title, or interest of the City and to declare
  the November 1992 agreement between the City  and East Mountain void.  The
  City counterclaimed, seeking ownership of the entire water  distribution
  system of the Town by condemnation.  In July 1994, Rutland Superior Court
  granted  the Town's motion for summary judgment dismissing the City's
  counterclaim.  The Town's  claims proceeded to trial.

       After a bench trial, the court entered a decision for the Town.  The
  court made specific  findings of fact that the Town had granted permission
  for installation of the line at a warned  hearing, attended by
  representatives of the owners and general contractor for Heritage Hill. 
  The  court further found that both parties expected the line to become Town
  property upon completion  without compensation being paid.  The court
  concluded, "John Russell has simply changed his  mind.  He later saw it to
  his advantage to demand compensation."  The court awarded ownership  of the
  Gleason Road water line within Town limits to the Town.  Defendants East
  Mountain  Company and John A. Russell Corporation (Defendants) appeal.  The
  City did not appeal the  court's decision.

       Defendants allege that the trial court erred in deciding:  (1) that
  the water line in Gleason  Road became the property of the Town by
  operation of law; (2) that there was an agreement 

 

  between the Town and Russell and concluding that the agreement was not
  barred by Vermont's  Statute of Frauds; (3) that William Kollhepp,
  Russell's agent, had authority to form the  agreement; (4) that the dig
  permit, without reservations or conditions regarding the water line,  was
  irrelevant to the inquiry; and (5) that the meeting at which the agreement
  was made  complied with Vermont's Open Meeting Law. 

       Conclusions of law by the trial court will be upheld if supported by
  the findings.  See  Abbiati v. Buttura & Sons, Inc., 161 Vt. 314, 318,