Title: State v. Carroll

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Carroll (2002-010); 175 Vt. 571; 830 A.2d 89

2003 VT 57

[Filed 13-Jun-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 57

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-010

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Washington Superior Court
                                       }	
  John and Adrienne Carroll 	       }
  The John M. Carroll Company, Inc.    }	DOCKET NO. 473-8-97 Wncv

                                                Trial Judge: Alan W. Cheever

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

       ¶  1.  The State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources appeals
  from a summary judgment of the Washington Superior Court in favor of
  defendant property owners.  The trial court ruled that the State's action
  for repayment of funds expended to remediate petroleum contamination on the
  site was barred by the statute of limitations.  The State contends the
  court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations commenced when
  the State first expended funds to investigate the site.  We reverse and
  remand.

       ¶  2.  In 1978, defendants purchased property located in Manchester
  Center and have retained ownership since the time of purchase.  Both
  defendants and the preceding owners used the property as a fuel
  distribution and storage facility.  Between 1909 and 1978, the property was
  contaminated by several significant oil spills.  During the course of
  defendants' ownership, there were two spills totaling approximately seventy
  gallons of gasoline.  Active operation of a distribution and storage
  facility on the property ceased in 1989.  

       ¶  3.  That year, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) received
  reports of petroleum fumes in the basement of defendants' neighbor, the
  Merlu Corporation.  A preliminary investigation report issued by the State
  in 1990 indicated that petroleum contamination was emanating from a storage
  facility on defendants' property. The State informed defendants that they
  would be named as parties potentially responsible for the contamination. 
  In July 1990, defendants informed the State that they did not have the
  money to remedy any contamination on their property.  The investigation
  continued.  In January and February 1993, the State informed defendants
  that remedial work was necessary to protect the public health and
  environment, and that if they did not construct a remediation system to
  contain and collect the petroleum contamination the State would undertake
  the work using funds from the environmental contingency fund, and would
  seek reimbursement for the costs of remediation.
       
       ¶  4.  Defendants made no effort to remediate the situation.  In
  July 1993, the State received permission to access the property and to
  construct a series of groundwater recovery trenches to intercept and
  collect contaminated groundwater on the property.  By the year 2000, its
  costs in connection with remediating the property exceeded $350,000.

       ¶  5.  In August 1997, the State filed a claim against defendants,
  under 10 V.S.A. § 6615, seeking to recover the costs already incurred and
  those expected to be incurred "to clean up a petroleum release on property
  owned by defendants."   

       ¶  6.  Following discovery, the State and defendants filed
  cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of the statute of
  limitations.  The parties agreed that the six-year statute of limitations
  found in 12 V.S.A. § 511 applied, but disputed when the State's cause of
  action accrued. (FN1)  The State argued that the provision in 10 V.S.A. §
  1283(c) allowing it to bring an action to "enforce the obligation to repay
  the fund" implies that the Legislature intended the State's cause of action
  to accrue when the remediation is substantially complete and the State's
  costs are known. (FN2)  Defendants claimed that the cause of action accrued
  when the State first spent funds to investigate the site in 1990, because
  that was the date when its cause of action for repayment first became
  available.  See Agency of Natural Res. v. Towns, 168 Vt. 449, 452,