Title: Huddleston v. University of Vermont

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Huddleston v. Univ. of Vermont  (97-262); 168 Vt. 249; 719 A.2d 415

[Filed 4-Sep-1998]

       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. 97-262

James I. Huddleston, III                     Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Chittenden Superior Court

University of Vermont and                    December Term, 1997
State Agricultural College

Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

       Frank H. Langrock of Langrock, Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, for
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Jeffrey J. Nolan of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

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

       JOHNSON, J.  Defendant University of Vermont and State Agricultural
  College (UVM) appeals a superior court decision reversing and remanding
  UVM's denial of plaintiff's application for in-state residency status with
  the attendant benefit of reduced tuition.  Plaintiff James Huddleston
  (student) is a medical student at the UVM College of Medicine.  UVM denied
  student's application for in-state status because he failed to prove that
  he satisfied the residency requirements by clear and convincing evidence. 
  Student appealed this decision to the superior court pursuant to V.R.C.P.
  75.  The superior court held that, since the preponderance of the evidence
  standard is generally appropriate in administrative adjudications in
  Vermont, it applies in UVM's residency determinations.  The court remanded
  the issue for UVM to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether
  student is eligible for in-state status.  UVM now appeals, arguing that it
  is not an administrative agency and possesses the implicit authority to set
  the standard of proof required at residency determinations for reduced
  in-state tuition.  We agree and reverse.

 

       Student was born and raised in Massachusetts, and graduated from Yale
  University with a B.S. degree in May of 1994.  Student moved to Vermont on
  June 1, 1994, and subsequently found employment at UVM in Burlington.  On
  June 15, 1994, student started the application process for admission to
  medical school, and applied to twenty-three medical schools, at that time
  indicating his father's Florida residence as his permanent address.  In
  September 1994, student submitted an application to the UVM College of
  Medicine, indicating his permanent address as Burlington, Vermont.  In the
  Spring of 1995, student registered to vote in Vermont, obtained a Vermont
  driver's license, and registered his car in Vermont.  Student also filed
  his 1994 and 1995 income taxes in the state of Vermont.

       In April of 1995, student was accepted by UVM as an out-of-state
  student to begin his studies in the Fall of 1995.  In July of 1995, before
  starting classes, student applied for in-state tuition status.  Student's
  application was denied, and student subsequently appealed.  After a
  hearing, student's application was again denied. Student appealed to the
  Residency Appellate Officer who held that student did not qualify as an
  in-state student as defined in UVM's residency regulations because he
  failed to establish the necessary intent to make Vermont his permanent
  residence.  Upon reconsideration, the Residency Appellate Officer again
  denied student's application for in-state tuition status.  Student then
  submitted another application for in-state tuition status for the semester
  starting in the spring of 1996.  A hearing was held and his application was
  denied.  In April of 1996, student filed a complaint under V.R.C.P. 75 in
  Chittenden Superior Court.

       In this Rule 75 appeal of governmental action, the Chittenden Superior
  Court was confined to reviewing only substantial questions of law. See
  Molesworth v. University of Vt., 147 Vt. 4, 6,