Title: Layden v. City of Rutland

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Layden v. City of Rutland (98-459); 169 Vt. 594; 737 A.2d 894

[Filed 01-Jul-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-459

                               JUNE TERM, 1999

Thomas J. Layden	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Rutland Superior Court
	                               }	
City of Rutland and Ronald Graves      }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. S0434-97/648-97RcCa	

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

       Plaintiff Thomas Layden appeals the superior court's grant of summary
  judgment for   defendant City of Rutland, claiming that the development
  rights and interests he acquired in a  condominium project are not subject
  to taxation by the City under 27 V.S.A. § 1322.  We  affirm.
	
       The essential facts are not in dispute.  On February 14, 1997,
  plaintiff purchased Country  Grove Condominiums, an incomplete condominium
  project developed by Patch Pond  Partnership.  Prior to the purchase, the
  project had been the subject of a tax dispute between the  partnership and
  the condominium owners and the City.  By stipulation, the undeveloped
  property  of Country Grove Condominiums was taxed to the partnership,
  separately from the individual  condominium owners' tax assessment.
	
       The partnership's condominium project was subsequently foreclosed upon
  by Marble  Bank and the land and premises conveyed to Sowamco X, Ltd. by
  limited warranty deed.   Sowamco X, Ltd. then conveyed the same land and
  premises to plaintiff.  In a separate "bill of  sale," Sowamco X, Ltd.
  conveyed to plaintiff the personal property located on the real property 
  and the intangible property attached to it, including development rights. 

       Plaintiff filed a request for declaratory judgment with the superior
  court for a  determination as to whether the taxes assessed against the
  development rights were invalid under  27 V.S.A. § 1322, a provision
  contained in the Condominium Ownership Act.  In a companion  case,
  plaintiff filed a tax appeal from the assessment of the Board of Civil
  Authority of Rutland.   The court consolidated the two cases and plaintiff
  filed motions for summary judgment with the  City filing cross motions. 
  Without addressing § 1322, the court determined that, based on the  deed,
  the bill of sale, and the stipulation entered into by the prior owner and
  the City, real  property was transferred to plaintiff along with the
  development rights of the property.  The  court found that although
  development rights were transferred, the acquired land was physical 
  property held separately from the condominium owners' association and
  therefore subject to  separate taxation by the City.  The court granted the
  City's motion for summary judgment and  plaintiff appealed. 

       Plaintiff claims that because only non-taxable condominium development
  rights were  transferred, 27 V.S.A. § 1322 controls the disposition of this
  tax dispute.  Plaintiff argues that  the land may not be taxed separately
  to plaintiff because the undeveloped land is included in the  common areas
  of the condominium association under § 1322, and is therefore included in
  the  taxes

 

  assessed to the individual condominium owners. 
	
       We review a motion for summary judgment using the same standard as the
  trial court.   See O'Donnell v. Bank of Vermont, 166 Vt. 221, 224,