Title: Dept. of Forests, Parks and Recreation v. Town of Ludlow Zoning Board

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Dept. of Forests, Parks and Recreation v. Town of Ludlow Zoning Board
(2002-336); 177 Vt. 623; 869 A.2d 603

2004 VT 104

[Filed 20-Oct-2004]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 07-Jan-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 104

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-336

                              JUNE  TERM, 2004

  Department of Forests, Parks and     }  APPEALED FROM:
  Recreation                           }
                                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }  Windsor Superior Court
                                       }  
  Town of Ludlow Zoning Board and      }
  John, Christine, Wayne and           }       
  Beverly Lysobey                      }         DOCKET NO. 223-4-91 Wrcv

                                                Trial Judge: Alan W. Cook

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  For the third time, we consider property owner John Lysobey's
  efforts to obtain year-round access to his property, which abuts a public
  road located on land leased by the Department of Forests, Parks, and
  Recreation to Okemo Mountain, Inc. for use as a ski trail during the ski
  season.  Following a jury verdict on remand from our second opinion in this
  case, Lysobey obtained a judgment in excess of $150,000, including interest
  and court costs, to compensate him for being deprived of year-round access
  to his property.  We vacate the jury's verdict and the superior court's
  judgment based on our conclusion that Lysobey's lack of standing and the
  expiration of the applicable statutory limitations period preclude Lysobey
  from receiving compensation for the taking of access rights to the subject
  property in the 1960s, long before Lysobey owned the property or brought
  suit seeking redress for the loss of those rights.
   
       ¶  2.  Our two previous opinions concerning the subject property
  include a detailed factual and procedural history of this dispute and the
  ensuing litigation.  See Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Town of Ludlow, 164 Vt.
  447,