Title: Miller v. Town of West Windsor

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Miller v. Town of West Windsor (97-048); 167 Vt. 598; 704 A.2d 1170

[Filed 21-Nov-1997]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-048

                             OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Dennis and Judith Miller        }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     Windsor Superior Court
                                }
Town of West Windsor            }
                                }     DOCKET NO. S0145-96WrCa

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

       The Town appeals from an order of the Windsor Superior Court granting
  taxpayers' motion for summary judgment.  We reverse.

       As part of a general reappraisal of the Town of West Windsor, the
  listers assessed the 1995 value of taxpayers' property at $929,800. 
  Taxpayers appealed that assessment to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA). 
  The BCA raised the assessed value of Taxpayers' property to $1,550,800. 
  Taxpayers then took their case to the superior court for review de novo. 
  There, taxpayers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the BCA
  missed the statutory time limit by not commencing a hearing within fourteen
  days as required by 32 V.S.A. § 4404(b) and failed to provide sufficient
  reasons for its decisions as required by 32 V.S.A. § 4404(c).  Based on the
  BCA's alleged failure to substantially comply with the statutory
  requirements, taxpayers asked the court to apply the remedy provided in §
  4404 and set the value of their property in the 1995 grand list at the
  value established for the prior year.  Upon consideration of taxpayers'
  motion, the court found that the Town substantially complied with the time
  requirements of § 4404.  However, the court found that the BCA failed to
  provide sufficient reasons for its decision and, on that basis, held that
  taxpayers were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Town appeals
  the grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether the decision of the
  BCA was adequate in light of § 4404(c).  Taxpayers cross-appeal, claiming
  that the hearing provided was not timely as required by § 4404(b).

       We review a motion for summary judgment using the same standard
  applied by the trial court; summary judgment is appropriate only when the
  materials before the court clearly show that there is no genuine issue of
  material fact and the party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 
  See Wesco, Inc. v. Hay-Now, Inc., 159 Vt. 23, 26, 613 A.2d 207, 209 (1992).
  The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proof, and the
  opposing party must be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and
  inferences in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. 
  See Price v. Leland, 149 Vt. 518, 521,