State v. Davidson, No. 483-8-13 Wncv (Teachout, J., April 15, 2015)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Washington Unit Docket No. 483-8-13 Wncv

State of Vermont, 

Department of Public Safety

Plaintiff

v.

Joel Davidson

Defendant

DECISION re:

The State’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Department of Public Safety initiated this case to recoup, after accounting for offsets,

certain funds it claims it overpaid a now-retired state trooper, Defendant Joel Davidson, as part 

of a back pay award and for a sum that it neglected to deduct from his annual leave payout upon 

retirement. The State has filed a motion for summary judgment. 

The back pay overpayment

Mr. Davidson was wrongfully terminated from his position as a state trooper. The 

Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) ordered his reinstatement and awarded partial back 

pay. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Davidson was entitled to full

back pay. The State then paid additional back pay to Mr. Davidson. Issues related to back pay 

and other matters remaining in controversy after the Supreme Court decision proceeded to the 

VLRB for resolution.

The VLRB expressly found:

The back pay payment made by the Employer to Appellant in June 2009 

contained an error. Appellant improperly received back pay for the pay periods 

beginning January 20, 2008, and February 3, 2008, and part of the pay period 

starting January 6, 2008. Appellant was reinstated and began receiving regular 

pay effective January 15, 2008. Thus, the July 2009 back pay payment resulted in 

Appellant receiving double payment from January 15 – February 16, 2008. The 

error resulted in an overpayment to Appellant in the amount of $7,036.73.

It concluded: 

The final issue before us is whether to correct an error made by the 
2

Employer in back wages paid to Appellant subsequent to the Supreme Court. The 

Employer incorrectly overpaid Appellant $7,036.73 in back pay for a period 

where he already had received regular pay due to his reinstatement. We will 

order that Appellant reimburse the Employer for this overpayment. Otherwise, 

Appellant would be made more than whole for his improper dismissal.

And it ordered: “Appellant shall reimburse the Employer $7,036.73 for the back pay 

overpayment made to Appellant.” VLRB Decision dated December 21, 2009. There is no 

indication in the VLRB’s decision that it considered the problematic subtleties embedded in the 

back pay overpayment, in particular those related to ordering the recipient of a net amount of 

back pay to refund to the employer the gross amount that the employer paid (if that is what 

occurred in this case) due of the employer’s exclusive fault. 

Mr. Davidson appealed this decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, which evidently 

dismissed the case for procedural reasons on July 15, 2010. The VLRB decision ordering back 

pay reimbursement thus became final.

Shortly thereafter, DPS voluntarily compromised the amount owed to it. In a letter to 

Mr. Davidson, DPS’s Director of Administration wrote as follows:

As you know, the Vermont Labor Relations Board has ordered you to reimburse 

the State $7,036.73 for the back pay overpayment made to you in connection with 

the above referenced case. Now that the appeals process has concluded, the State 

is seeking your cooperation in repaying the amount owed.

As you know, a portion of the aforementioned overpayment was not subject to 

taxation (interest and annual leave over the cap), and your retirement contribution 

was not subject to full taxation, therefore Payroll has recalculated the taxes and 

provided the net amount due in the attached spreadsheet. Please remit a check for 

$4,377.87, made payable to the State of Vermont, at your earliest opportunity.

Letter from Joanne Chadwick to Joel Davidson dated (Sept. 13, 2010); see also Letter from 

Joanne Chadwick to Joel Davidson dated (Dec. 17, 2010) (confirming claim for reduced amount 

of overpayment).

In this case, the State seeks to enforce the back pay overpayment as found by the VLRB, 

$7,036.73. See 3 V.S.A. § 1002 (enforcement of VLRB orders). It also proposes a complex 

process by which Mr. Davidson might then be able to recapture some losses ostensibly resulting 

from withholdings when the overpayment occurred. Mr. Davidson seeks to enforce the 

compromised amount of the overpayment, $4,377.87.

The record is clear that Mr. Davidson took steps, including not cashing certain checks 

from the State to use as an offset against the revised amount owed and attempting to transfer the 

remaining balance to the State, to satisfy his obligation on the compromised amount, the amount 

to which he and DPS agreed). As a general matter, agreements to compromise judgments for 

specific amounts are enforceable. See, e.g., Lowery v. Zorn, 9 So.2d 872, 873–74 (Ala. 1942); 
3

Horath v. Hess, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 325, 333–34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014); 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 

823 (WL updated Feb. 2015) (“A judgment creditor and debtor can agree to compromise and 

settle a judgment for less than the full amount of an award.”). 

The State has offered no reason why the court should enforce the amount ordered by the 

VLRB rather than the compromised amount that DPS subsequently agreed would fully satisfy 

the obligation to refund the overpayment. Asked to explain, at the hearing on the State’s motion, 

DPS’s communications to Mr. Davidson about the compromised amount, the State was unable to 

other than to generally assert that there must have been some sort of misunderstanding. The 

court concludes that, in these circumstances, the compromised amount is enforceable.

Accordingly, the back pay overpayment debt is $4,377.87.

The uncashed checks

There is no dispute that two checks made out to Mr. Davidson from the State ($18.76 and 

$214.46) totaling $233.22 were released to the State and should be used to offset Mr. Davidson’s 

debt. 

There also is no dispute that two other checks made out to Mr. Davidson from the State 

($2,700.66 and $474.32) totaling $3,174.98 are in the State’s possession and, once Mr. Davidson 

releases them to the State, should be used as an additional offset.

Mr. Davidson alleges that the face values of some or all of these checks represent net 

figures and he should be entitled to corresponding gross amounts when they are used in offset. 

In other words, he seeks credit in offset for greater amounts than the checks facially represent. 

There is no reasonable basis to inflate the values of the checks, however. The reason the State 

wrote these checks, and whether they represent gross or net amounts, does not matter. In offset, 

they are simply sources of funds with the same value they would have if Mr. Davidson were to 

cash them and use the cash to satisfy the debt.

Annual leave balance payout

There is no dispute that when Mr. Davidson retired the State paid off his annual leave 

balance but neglected to reduce the payout by a required retirement contribution. The 

undisputed value of that mistake is $1,200.18, which remains owing to the State.

Summary

Mr. Davidson thus owes the State $4,377.87 (back pay overpayment) and $1,200.18 

(annual leave payout error) less $233.22 (the checks already released to the State) and $3,174.98

(the checks he has agreed to release to the State). Once Mr. Davidson releases the latter checks 

to the State, the balance due will be $2,169.85. 
4

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion for summary judgment is granted on 

liability and as to the amounts described above. Attorney Humbert shall submit a form of 

judgment. Mr. Davidson shall have five business days to file any objection.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of April 2015.

_____________________________

Mary Miles Teachout,

Superior Judge