Title: Robitaille v. Rubin

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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. 91-440


 Charles Robitaille and                       Supreme Court
 Freola Robitaille
                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

 Herbert Rubin and                            May Term, 1992
 Lucille Rubin


 Frank G. Mahady, J.

 Geoffrey W. Crawford of O'Neill and Crawford, Burlington, for plaintiffs-
   appellants

 William D. Robinson, Colchester, for defendants-appellees

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Mark J. DiStefano, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for amicus curiae State


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Plaintiff-sellers appeal from a judgment granting
 defendant-purchasers' motion for a directed verdict in an action for breach
 of a purchase and sale contract.  The trial court concluded that plaintiffs'
 failure to show defendants a copy of an Act 250 land use permit, pursuant to
 a condition of the permit, constituted grounds for a per se right of
 rescission.  We reverse and remand.
      In July 1989, the parties entered into a purchase and sale agreement
 for the conveyance of plaintiffs' house in the St. Albans Hills development
 in the Town of St. Albans.  The development was subject to a land use permit
 which was granted by District Environmental Commission #6 to Poquette &
 Bruley, Inc., the original subdividers of the development.  The land use
 permit contained the following condition:
         15.   Each prospective purchaser of any lot shall be
         shown a copy of the approved plot plan, the
         Certification of Compliance, and the Land Use Permit
         before any written contract of sale is entered into.

 Defendants were not shown a copy of the land use permit by plaintiffs or
 their real estate agents.  Closing did not occur as scheduled and defendants
 sent a letter to plaintiffs purporting to cancel the purchase and sale
 agreement.  Defendants asserted plaintiffs' failure to provide them with a
 copy of the land use permit as one reason for their action.
      Plaintiffs sued defendants for breach of the purchase and sale
 agreement.  At the conclusion of plaintiffs' case, defendants moved for a
 directed verdict and the trial court granted the motion.  The court held
 that plaintiffs' failure to show defendants the Act 250 land use permit
 prior to entering the purchase and sale agreement provided defendants an
 automatic right to rescind the contract.  We disagree.
       Nothing in the land use permit or Act 250 addresses the effect of a
 permittee's failure to comply with permit conditions on private contracts
 for the sale of affected property.  We have held that "[w]here no penalty
 has been imposed by the Legislature, we will not adjudicate one into
 existence."  Vermont Development Credit Corp. v. Kitchel, 149 Vt. 421, 430,