State of Vermont 

Superior Court—Environmental Division 

========================================================================= 

E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N 

========================================================================= 

In re Gaujac Final Plan Review PUD Docket No. 145-9-10 Vtec 

 Project: Request for final site plan/PUD approval 

 Applicant: Roland Gaujac and Lisa Gaujac 

 (Appeal from Town of Charlotte Planning Commission determination) 

 

Title: Motion to Dismiss Wygmans as Interested Parties, (Filing No. 3) 

Filed: November 9, 2010 

Filed By: Liam L. Murphy, Attorney for Applicant/Cross Appellants Roland Gaujac and Lisa Gaujac 

Response (in Opposition) filed on 11/30/10 by Interested Persons Maura and Justin Wygmans 

 ___ Granted X Denied ___ Other 

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss Maura and Justin Wygmans, who have entered a notice 

of appearance as interested persons in this appeal by Michael and Karen Frost of the Town of Charlotte

Planning Commission’s approval of a final site plan for a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) involving 

the construction of an inn and residence on Applicants Roland and Lisa Gaujac’s (“Applicants”) 

property. Applicants filed the motion to dismiss, arguing that the Wygmans’ notice of appearance was 

late, not mailed to Applicants’ Counsel, and may have been purposefully back-dated. Applicants also 

assert that allowing the Wygmans to intervene would prejudice Applicants and delay resolution of the 

matter because of a quickly approaching mediation session scheduled for December 15, 2010. 

This Court’s procedural rules require most parties, with a few exceptions not pertaining here, 

who wish to intervene in the appeal of a municipal body’s decision to file a notice of appearance within 

20 days of receiving service of the notice of appeal. V.R.E.C.P. 5(c). The parties wishing to intervene 

must also serve each of the other parties involved in the appeal with their notices of appearance. Id.; see 

also V.R.C.P. 5. If a filing party misses the 20-day deadline, the party may file a “timely” motion to 

intervene. V.R.E.C.P. 5(a)(2), (c); see also 24 V.S.A. § 4471(c); V.R.C.P. 24. Further, all of these

filings must be signed by the filing party, or the party’s counsel, or they will be “stricken unless 

omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or

party.” V.R.C.P. 11(a).1

The Wygmans filed an unsigned notice of appearance with the Court on November 5, 2010, a 

total of 31 days after they were served with notice of Applicants’ cross appeal, thereby rendering the

Wygmans’ filing 11 days late. For reasons unexplained to the Court (and not relied upon in our 

determination here), the Wygmans dated their notice October 26, 2010 but the Court did not receive it 

until November 5, 2010. When the Court brought the signature omission to the Wygmans’ attention, 

they corrected this by each filing signed pro se notices of appearance on November 12, 2010. In 

response to Applicants’ motion to dismiss, the Wygmans filed a signed letter apologizing for the 

 

1

 The signature serves as a party’s certification of the accuracy and good faith of the party’s representations to the 

Court. See Reporter’s Notes, V.R.C.P. 11. 
In re Gaujac Final Plan Review/PUD, No. 145-9-10 Vtec (EO on Motion to Dismiss IPs) (12-14-10) Page 2 of 2. 

lateness of their filing and indicating that they were out of the state for the month of September and fell 

behind on their correspondence. 

We cannot discern how missing this appearance deadline by 11 days is an egregious delay 

warranting dismissal.2 Here, the Wygmans promptly corrected the omission of their signatures, once the 

Court brought their signature omission to their attention. While it remains unclear whether the 

Wygmans have served all of the other parties involved in this appeal with copies of their notice of 

appearance, Applicants were notified of the Wygmans’ desire to appear through an e-mail on November 

4. (See Mot. to Dismiss Wygmans as Interested Parties n.1, filed Nov. 8, 2010). Additionally, despite 

not filing an official motion to intervene, which is required of the Wygmans under V.R.E.C.P. 5(c), the 

Wygmans have filed a signed explanation of their tardy notice with the Court in the form of a letter 

responding to Applicants’ motion.3

Ultimately, the procedural errors in the date, format, and service of the Wygmans’ notice of 

appearance do not warrant the harsh remedy of their dismissal as interested persons. If the Wygmans 

had filed a motion to intervene, V.R.C.P. 24(b) would require the Court to consider whether 

adjudication of the rights of the original parties in this appeal will be unduly delayed or prejudiced by 

the Wygmans’ appearance. Applicants’ arguments on this question have not convinced us that the 

errors here create such problems. The Wygmans state that they are aware of the date of the scheduled 

mediation and have “no problem with this date.” (See letter to Court from Maura and Justin Wygmans, 

filed Nov. 30, 2010). Additionally, while the Court frowns upon dating correspondence with a date 

other than that on which it is mailed, we do not think the discrepancy here on the Wygmans’ original 

notice of appearance, nine days, warrants their dismissal. 

For the above reasons, the Court finds that the Wygmans may remain interested persons in this 

appeal. Thus, the Wygmans may and should participate in the upcoming mediation session which was 

ordered by the Court through its October 20, 2010 Scheduling Order. If the Wygmans have not done so 

already they must send copies of their signed notice of appearance, which was filed with the Court on 

November 12, 2010, to all of the parties in this appeal. 

___________________________________________ ___December 14, 2010___ 

 Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date 

======================================================================== 

Date copies sent to: ____________ Clerk's Initials _______ 

Copies sent to: 

 Attorney Vincent A. Paradis for Appellants Karen Frost and Michael Frost 

 Attorney David W. Rugh for Interested Person Town of Charlotte 

 Attorney Liam L. Murphy for Cross Appellants Roland Gaujac and Lisa Gaujac 

 Interested Person Louise F. Reid 

 Interested Persons Maura Wygmans and Justin Wygmans 

 

2

 While Applicants discuss other opportunities the Wygmans had to file notices of appearance in this and a related 

appeal—the approval of Applicants’ preliminary site plan—the applicable rule here, V.R.E.C.P. 5(c), entitles a party to 

enter an appearance within 20 days of any notice of appeal. (See Mot. to Dismiss Wygmans as Interested Parties 2, 

filed Nov. 8, 2010). 

3

 The record does not indicate if and when the Wygmans received service of Applicants’ November 9th motion to 

dismiss. The Wygmans letter in response to the motion was filed on November 30, 2010. The Court reminds the 

Wygmans that they must comply with the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure including Rule 78 which requires 

memorandum in opposition to motions to be filed with the Court 15 days after a party receives service of the motion.