Case Title: Burr and Burton Seminary v. Town of Manchester

Citation: 172 Vt. 433, 782 A.2d 1149

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Burr and Burton Seminary v. Town of Manchester (2000-294); 172 Vt. 433;
782 A.2d 1149

[Filed 24-Aug-2001]

       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. 2000-294

Burr and Burton Seminary	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Bennington Superior Court

Town of Manchester 	                         June Term, 2001 
Village of Manchester

Richard W. Norton, J.

Orland Campbell, Jr., and Matthew C. Samuelson, Manchester Village, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven F. Stitzel of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellee.

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

       JOHNSON, J.   Appellant taxpayer Burr and Burton Seminary appeals from
  a decision of  the Bennington Superior Court granting the Town of
  Manchester summary judgment on taxpayer's  claim that two buildings it owns
  are exempt from property taxes under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4).  The  court held
  that the buildings are not exempt because the buildings are not directly
  connected with the  running of Burr and Burton Seminary.  We affirm in
  part, and reverse in part.

       Burr and Burton Seminary is a non-profit corporation that operates a
  private high school in  Manchester, Vermont known as the Burr and Burton
  Academy.  Burr and Burton has traditionally  supplied housing to the
  headmaster, as part of the compensation package, on a building on campus 
  known as the Head House.  In 1996, Burr and Burton acquired a small lot in
  Manchester two miles 

 

  from the school's main campus and constructed a house on the land to be
  used as the Head  House.  The on campus house was converted to office
  space.  The school's headmaster is required to  live in the Head House and
  pay certain related expenses.  During the 1998-1999 school year, the  Head
  House was used for school purposes approximately eleven times for various
  events including  meetings, dinners and parties for faculty, students,
  trustees and staff.  In April 1997, the new Head  House was added to the
  Grand List of the Town and appraised at approximately $290,000.

       Burr and Burton also owns a building on Williams Street in Manchester
  that the school used  as dormitory space for students.  At the end of the
  school year in 1994, Burr and Burton listed the  Williams Street property
  for sale with a realtor.  Pending a sale, Burr and Burton rented the
  property  to various tenants.  The building was sold in 1999.  In April
  1998, the Williams Street property was  added to the Grand List of the Town
  and appraised at approximately $177,000.

       Burr and Burton grieved the appraisals to the Board of Listers and
  then to superior court on  the grounds that the properties are tax exempt. 
  The school argues that the properties fall within the  exemption for "lands
  owned or leased by colleges, academies or other public schools" in §
  3802(4)  because both properties are owned by the school.  The Town
  contends that this statute requires that  the properties be used by the
  school for an educational purpose and that neither of the properties is 
  used accordingly.  On cross motions for summary judgment, the court agreed
  with the Town and  held that neither the Head House nor the Williams Street
  property is directly connected to the  running of the school.  Thus, the
  properties do not qualify for the exemption.  This appeal followed.

       In reviewing a motion for summary judgment we apply the same standard
  as the trial court.   Summary judgment is appropriate when the record
  demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to  material fact, and the
  moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Guiel v. Allstate
  Ins.  Co., 170 Vt. 464, 467,