Case Title: Mohr v. Village of Manchester

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY_ORDER.92-546; 161 Vt. 563; 641 A.2d 89

[Filed 17-Sep-1993]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 92-546

                               MAY TERM, 1993


 Raymond M. and Ann L. Mohr        }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
      v.                           }          Bennington Superior Court
                                   }
 Village of Manchester             }
 Frank Harrigan, James D.          }          DOCKET NO. S0279-90BcCa
 & Carolyn Stewart, Intervenors    }

              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      This appeal concerns appellants' right to contest the Manchester
 Village Planning Commission's approval of the Mohrs' application to erect a
 structure on their property.  Appellants Frank Harrigan and the Stewarts,
 adjoining landowners, claim that the trial court erred by failing to grant
 them their statutory right to intervene as interested persons, pursuant to
 24 V.S.A. { 4471.  Section 4471 provides that "[a]n interested person may
 appeal a decision of a board of adjustment to the superior court" and
 mandates that notice be sent "to every interested person appearing and
 having been heard at the hearing before the board" who then, upon motion,
 "shall be granted leave by the court to intervene."

      It is undisputed that appellants were interested persons as defined in
 24 V.S.A. { 4464(b)(3), and thus had a statutory right to intervene.  It is
 also undisputed that appellants were not served with notice of appeal as
 mandated by { 4471.  The issue then is whether the trial court was required
 to allow appellants to exercise their statutory right by granting their
 motion to intervene.  While appellants had a right to intervene, the trial
 court has discretion to deny intervention where the motion is untimely.
 See Ernst v. Rocky Road, Inc. 141 Vt. 637, 639-640 (1982) (timeliness of
 application to intervene under V.R.C.P. 24(a) is matter within discretion of
 the trial court).  Here, however, the trial court denied appellants' motion
 without explaining why it was denied.  We cannot review the trial court's
 exercise of discretion where there is no record of how that decision was
 reached.  We therefore remand the matter to the trial court for
 reconsideration of appellants' motion to intervene.

      Appellant Village of Manchester claims that the Mohrs failed to invoke
 the jurisdiction of the superior court because they did not timely file
 their notice of appeal with the Planning Commission, as required under
 V.R.C.P. 74(b).  This Court has previously held that the failure to file a
 notice of appeal, brought under 24 V.S.A. { 4471, with the clerk or other
 officer of the tribunal appealed from, here the Planning Commission, within
 the required time deprives the court of jurisdiction over the appeal.  See
 Harvey v. Town of Waitsfield, 137 Vt. 80, 82,