Title: State v. Singer

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Singer  (2004-371); 180 Vt. 104; 904 A.2d 1184

2006 VT 46

[Filed 30-Jun-2006]


  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.


                                 2006 VT 46

                                No. 2004-371


  State of Vermont                          Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from 
       v.                                   Washington Superior Court


  Barrett M. Singer                         October Term, 2005


  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Michael O. Duane, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

  Robert F. O'Neill and Andrew R. Strauss of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶ 1.     SKOGLUND, J.   This case concerns the calculation of a damage
  award flowing from a jury verdict finding defendant liable for the
  unauthorized cutting of trees under Vermont's timber trespass statute, 13
  V.S.A. § 3606.  On appeal, defendant challenges the jury's award of
  punitive damages, and the State cross-appeals to challenge the court's jury
  instructions on how to calculate damages under § 3606.  We reject the trial
  court's method of calculating damages under § 3606 and, as a result, hold
  that the State should have received treble damages under that statute. We
  also hold that punitive damages are unavailable in tandem with multiple
  damages under § 3606.  Accordingly, we remand for entry of judgment in the
  State's favor.  
   
       ¶ 2.     Defendant owns a parcel of land in Hyde Park, Vermont,
  abutting the Green River Reservoir State Park, which is owned by the State. 
  In April and May 1999, defendant sought a variance from the Town of Hyde
  Park so that he could build a boathouse closer to the reservoir.  In May
  1999, the State's Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation denied
  defendant permission to construct an access from his property across state
  park land to the water, and the Town denied his request for a variance.

       ¶ 3.     After both denials, defendant completed extensive work on his
  property that spilled over onto state park land.  Specifically, he cut down
  ninety-eight trees on a swath of state park land between his property and
  the reservoir and bulldozed a road to the water across the cleared land. 
  On June 21, 1999, the State commenced an action seeking injunctive relief,
  damages, punitive damages, and other penalties.  On June 23, 1999, pursuant
  to the parties' stipulation, the Washington Superior Court entered an order
  requiring defendant to immediately cease all construction, install
  immediate erosion control measures, hire a consultant to develop a plan to
  remediate the damage to the state park land, and implement the remediation
  plan.  Defendant carried out the remediation plan, although the State twice
  had to move for contempt, with the court issuing amended orders of
  injunctive relief in response.(FN1)
   
       ¶ 4.     In May 2001, this matter went to trial before a jury on the
  issue of damages.  The State sought treble damages under Vermont's timber
  trespass statute, which provides that when a person cuts down, destroys, or
  removes trees or timber without the owner's permission, "the party injured
  may recover of such person treble damages in an action on this statute." 
  13 V.S.A. § 3606.  If the defendant proves that he "acted through mistake,
  or had good reason to believe that the trees, timber, wood, or underwood
  belonged to him, or that he had a legal right to perform the acts
  complained of," then the injured party can recover only single damages. 
  Id.
   
       ¶ 5.     The jury returned its verdict via a special verdict form
  supplied by the trial court.(FN2)  The jury answered that the "actual value
  of trees lost by the State" and the "value of replacement trees planted by
  [defendant]" both equaled $54,000 and found that the cutting of the trees
  was not an "honest mistake."  In formulating the damage award, the jury was
  instructed to calculate its answer as follows: "If the answer to Question 2
  is 'no,' then your answer to Question 4 will be three times (Response
  Number 1 minus Response Number 3).  Put differently, first do the
  subtraction, if any, then the multiplication, if any."  The jury filled in
  a figure of $0, because 54,000 subtracted from 54,000 is zero, and zero
  multiplied by three is zero.  Finally, Question 5 asked the jury to decide
  punitive damages, noting that "[w]hether to make a punitive award, and its
  amount, is a matter for the jury's discretion."  The jury filled in $62,500
  as the punitive damages award.

       ¶ 6.     Defendant argues on appeal that: the jury could not award
  punitive damages once it decided that the State's actual damages were $0;
  the statutory trebling of damages is a punitive measure which, if utilized,
  precludes an accompanying award of punitive damages; and injunctive relief
  cannot support a punitive damages award.  The State responds that punitive
  damages may be awarded regardless of whether it won a net verdict, as long
  as the jury concluded that defendant was liable to the State for some
  quantum of harm.  Thus, the State reasons, the $54,000 value the jury
  placed on the cut trees was sufficient to support punitive damages, even
  assuming defendant was entitled to a $54,000 offset for the remediation
  work.  The State argues in its brief that punitive damages are available
  along with treble damages, but at oral argument its counsel indicated that,
  if faced with the choice of accepting treble damages less the value of the
  planted trees or a retrial on the issue of punitive damages, the State
  would forego the punitive damages.
   
       ¶ 7.     In its cross-appeal, the State argues that the trial court
  should have instructed the jury to treble the value of the trees cut before
  deducting the value of the replacement trees.  The State pointed to
  decisions from other jurisdictions interpreting timber trespass statutes
  that uniformly apply the statutory multiplier to the plaintiffs' damages
  before deducting the value of any remedial work or other mitigation by the
  defendants.  The State also cited cases addressing RICO and the Clayton Act
  for the proposition that any offset should be subtracted after applying the
  statutory multiplier.  The State contends that such a rule serves the
  purposes behind cumulative damages statutes like 13 V.S.A. §
  3606-compensating injured parties for their loss, plus the time and
  inconvenience devoted to remedying it, and encouraging compliance with the
  law.  Thus, the State concludes, the trial court undermined the statute by
  essentially trebling the value of defendant's reparation efforts, instead
  of trebling the value of the damage he caused.

       ¶ 8.     In section I, we hold that the court incorrectly instructed
  the jury to subtract the value of the replacement trees from the value of
  the cut trees and then treble the result.  We agree with the majority of
  other jurisdictions dealing with similar timber trespass statutes, as well
  as the weight of authority concerning other multiple-damages statutes like
  RICO and the Clayton Act, and hold that the court should have instructed
  the jury to treble the value of the cut trees before subtracting the value
  of the replacement trees.  In section II, we hold that the State cannot
  recover punitive damages along with treble damages under the timber
  trespass statute, again joining the majority of courts that have addressed
  the availability of punitive damages in addition to multiple damages under
  similar timber trespass statutes.

                                     I.
   
       ¶ 9.     The State's challenge to the trial court's method of
  computing damages under 13 V.S.A. § 3606, as reflected in the instructions
  accompanying Question 4 of the verdict form, presents an issue of first
  impression: Does the statutory multiplier apply before or after the value
  of defendant's remediation work is subtracted from the value of the trees
  cut?  This is a question of law which we review de novo.  See United States
  v. Firchau,