Title: Town of Washington v. Emmons

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Town of Washington v. Emmons (2006-105)

2007 VT 22

[Filed 29-Mar-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 22

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-105

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2006


  Town of Washington                   }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
      v.                               }
                                       }         Orange Superior Court
                                       }
  Bernard C. Emmons and                }
  Theresa A. Emmons                    }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 18-1-01 OeCv

                                                 Trial Judge:  Mary Miles 
                                                               Teachout

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Bernard Emmons appeals the denial of a motion for relief from
  judgment, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the
  judgment in the first place because plaintiff Town lacked standing to
  initiate the case.  Accordingly, argues Mr. Emmons, the trial court abused
  its discretion in refusing to grant relief from a settlement ultimately
  agreed upon between him, acting as a pro se defendant, and the Town.  We
  affirm.

       ¶  2.  The Town of Washington brought suit against Bernard and Theresa
  Emmons in 2001 to compel them to clean up junk motor vehicles and other
  solid waste stored on their property and encroaching on an adjacent public
  right-of-way.  Some seven years earlier, in 1994, the Vermont
  Transportation Board obtained a permanent injunction against the Emmonses'
  interference with the highway and their use of the site as an illegal
  junkyard. (FN1)  At about the same time, the Vermont Agency of Natural
  Resources issued an administrative order requiring that the Emmonses desist
  from operating a commercial solid waste facility at the site without a
  permit, that they remove and properly dispose of all of the material dumped
  there, and that they pay a $10,000 fine. (FN2)   Although not a party to
  either proceeding, the Town, as part of its 2001 complaint against the
  Emmonses,  alleged violations and sought enforcement of the injunction and
  the administrative order, and sought an order and reimbursement for Town
  abatement of public-health hazards allegedly caused by the illegal dump
  operations.                              
   
       ¶  3.  The Emmonses never disputed the town's allegations of their
  past and continuing violation of those orders and the solid waste storage
  laws.  Acting pro se, the Emmonses entered into a stipulation with the Town
  in July 2002, reduced to a court order, in which they agreed to remove
  certain materials from their property or be subject to a civil penalty of
  $50 per day for noncompliance.  After failing to meet the terms of that
  agreement, Mr. Emmons signed a second stipulation in February 2004, also
  reduced to court order, in which he acknowledged that ongoing noncompliance
  rendered the Emmonses liable for up to $26,550 in penalties, and further
  agreed that, if the property was not cleaned up by July 2004, as promised,
  judgment would be entered against them in the amount of $33,450.  The court
  subsequently entered judgment for the Town for $33,450 on August 3, 2004.  

       ¶  4.  More than a year later, after consulting with an attorney,
  the Emmonses filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Vermont
  Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).  The motion alleged that the Town did not
  have standing to bring the original action, and the court did not have
  authority to award a civil penalty to the Town.  The motion was granted on
  other grounds as to Theresa Emmons but denied as to Bernard Emmons.  Mr.
  Emmons appealed. (FN3)

       ¶  5.  Mr. Emmons' principal argument in his Rule 60(b) motion, and in
  this appeal, is that the Town lacked standing to enforce the two previous
  orders when the Town had no party status in those proceedings.  See
  Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. State, 166 Vt. 337, 341,