Title: In re Town Highway No. 20 of Town of Georgia

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Town Highway No. 20 of the Town of Georgia (2002-389); 175 Vt. 626;
834 A.2d 17

2003 VT 76

[Filed 23-Jul-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 76

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-389

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  In re Town Highway No. 20	       }	APPEALED FROM:
  of the Town of Georgia	       }
                                       }
                                       }	Franklin Superior Court
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 173-97FC

                                                Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant Town of Georgia (the Town) and Intervenors Gregory
  and Janet Bechard (Intervenors) appeal from a superior court decision
  ordering the Town to allow Petitioner John Rhodes (Petitioner) to improve
  and maintain a section of Town Highway #20 (TH #20) and ordering
  Intervenors to remove all personal property they had stored in that section
  of the TH #20 right of way.  Intervenors separately appeal from denial of
  their cross-claim that they had acquired title to an acre of Petitioner's
  land by adverse possession and had acquired a prescriptive easement over a
  road, called the "Pent Road", through Petitioner's property.  On appeal,
  the Town and Intervenors make several procedural and substantive claims. 
  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The first part of this dispute revolves around the border
  between Petitioner's farm and Intervenors' farm, both located in the Town
  of Georgia.  Much about this border is disputed, including whether TH #20
  constitutes a portion of this border.  Intervenors claim that the road does
  not abut Petitioner's property because it runs to the south, not to the
  north, of Intervenors' house.  The trial court, however, found that a
  600-foot section of TH #20 formed a border between the northwest corner of
  Intervenors' property and the southeast portion of Petitioner's property,
  finally meeting with Bradley Hill Road to form a "T" intersection.
        
       ¶  3.  On June 10, 1970, the Selectboard of the Town decided to hold
  a hearing on whether to discontinue a portion of TH #20 and legally
  reclassify that section from a town highway to a trail. (FN1)  At the hearing,
  held on June 30, 1970, the Selectboard considered the proposed
  reclassification.  Ten months later, on May 10, 1971, the Selectboard voted
  to reclassify a portion of TH #20 as a trail.  Intervenors claim that the
  portion of TH #20 at issue in this case was exactly that part of TH #20
  that was reclassified.  The trial court, however, found many discrepancies
  between the Selectboard's reclassification order and the actual portion of
  TH #20 in dispute, stating that "the 1971 order does not describe an
  existing section of TH #20."  Additionally, the Town was required to give
  notice of the hearing to all persons owning or interested in land abutting
  the highway - which included Petitioner's father, H.C. Rhodes, who owned
  the farm at the time - via registered mail.  19 V.S.A. § 531 (1968),
  repealed by 1985, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.).  The parties dispute whether or not
  Petitioner's father received proper notice, although the superior court
  found that he had not.

       ¶  4.  In 1995, Petitioner formally asked the Selectboard to
  determine the location of TH #20 in the southeastern area where it abuts
  his farm and requested that the Town reconsider the 1971 Selectboard
  reclassification of the road as a trail.  He also sought permission to make
  improvements to the roadway in order to allow vehicles to safely cross TH
  #20 from Bradley Hill Road and to make the road safe for transit over rock
  ledges located in the TH #20 right of way.  Additionally, Petitioner sought
  an order requiring Intervenors to remove the fenced gate they had erected
  in the middle of TH #20 and the old farm equipment and wood they had stored
  in the highway right of way that blocked access to the Pent Road.  On April
  18, 1997, the Selectboard denied all of Petitioner's requests.

       ¶  5.  Petitioner then appealed the decisions of the Town of Georgia
  Selectboard to the Franklin County Superior Court, pursuant to 19 V.S.A. §§
  34 and 740.  Intervenors sought and were granted leave to intervene.  On
  June 26, 2002, the superior court found that TH #20 was legally laid out in
  1813 and that the reclassification in 1971 was void.  The court also found
  that the Selectboard had acted unconstitutionally in denying Petitioner's
  requests and ordered the Town to allow Petitioner to improve TH #20 and to
  direct Intervenors to remove their personal property from the road. 
  Intervenors and the Town appealed the trial court's decision and the Town
  filed a cross-appeal.

       ¶  6.  We first address Intervenors' claims.  Intervenors' first
  claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding that the portion
  of TH #20 that runs along the northwestern border of their property was
  laid out in 1813 in compliance with the then-applicable law.  Intervenors
  claim that the law in effect at the time TH #20 was laid out was a 1782 law
  that required a highway to be laid out by "chain and compass."  See "An Act
  Directing the Laying Out of Highways," Oct. 21, 1782, reprinted in 13 State
  Papers of Vermont 129-30 (J. A. Williams ed., 1965).  Intervenors' charge
  that because the original surveyors described the highway in "rods and
  degrees," and not "chain and compass," they did not substantially comply
  with the statute in effect at the time and thus never officially created a
  highway.  From this proposition they argue that TH #20 should be laid out
  to the south of their house, and not to the north.  We disagree.
        
       ¶  7.  We have difficulty understanding why Intervenors' argument
  should lead to the conclusion that TH #20 should be located to the south of
  their house, rather than to the north.  Nevertheless, for purposes of this
  appeal, we will address the merits of their argument.  The trial court held
  that because "chains" refers to a measurement of four rods and degrees are
  determined by a compass, the description of the highway substantially
  complied with the statute, and thus TH #20 was correctly laid out in 1813. 
  We agree with the superior court that the highway was correctly laid out in
  1813.  We find, however, that the governing law when TH #20 was laid out
  was an 1808 law, not the 1782 law cited by Intervenors.  That 1808 law
  required "every highway or road which shall in future be laid out or
  opened, shall be actually surveyed . . . ascertaining the breadth, course
  and distance of such road."  1 Laws of Vermont, ch. XLV, § 1, at 446
  (1808); see also Kelly v. Town of Barnard, 155 Vt. 296, 302, 583 A.2d 614,
  618 (1990) (in 1816 and 1817, the procedure for establishment of a public
  highway was governed by 1 Laws of Vermont, ch. XLV, § 1).  Because TH #20
  was described in rods and degrees, a measurement that conveys the "breadth,
  course, and distance" of the highway, it was properly laid out in 1813.  We
  do not need to determine whether "rods and degrees" is equal to "chain and
  compass" because the applicable law in 1813 does not require a measurement
  in chain and compass.  See Samplid Enters. v. First Vt. Bank, 165 Vt. 22,
  28,