Title: Ladd v. BRANDON FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1
Citation: 205 A.2d 411
Docket Number: 76
State: Vermont
Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 1964

205 A.2d 411 (1964) Guy LADD, Collector of Taxes, Town of Goshen, v. BRANDON FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1. No. 76. Supreme Court of Vermont. Addison. December 1, 1964. Wayne C. Bosworth, Middlebury, for plaintiff. Frank L. Bunting, Brandon, for defendant. Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ. BARNEY, Justice. The facts are agreed. Miss Shirley Farr made generous provision for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Town of Brandon in many ways. Among them was the gift in trust of land protecting the watershed of the water system serving the people of the Town of Brandon, through facilities maintained by Brandon Fire District No. 1 and Brandon Fire District No. 2. Most of this land was located in the Town of Goshen, and that part of it was put on the grand list there in the name of Brandon Fire District No. 1. The plaintiff, as tax collector, brought this action to collect overdue *412 assessments. The lower court found there was no tax liability, and gave judgment for the defendant, Brandon Fire District No. 1. The applicable statute, 32 V.S.A. § 3651, permits the listing of real estate for tax purposes to either the owner or possessor. To be chargeable, Brandon Fire District No. 1, under the findings, must fall into one of these categories. The plaintiff first seeks to place the defendant in the position of owner. To adequately deal with his claims we should have before us the appropriate provisions of the testamentary instrument setting up the trust, as modified by codicil, given in the findings: These provisions place title to the trust property firmly in the hands of the trustees designated. The beneficiary is not the defendant, Brandon Fire District No. 1, but is that body of people served by the water system involved. The findings make it clear that this encompasses people in Brandon Fire District No. 2, also, as well as people elsewhere in the Town of Brandon. Beneficial ownership, as referred to in Davis v. Union Meeting House Society, 93 Vt. 520, 527, 108 A. 704, certainly cannot be identified here with the defendant in this case, even if the doctrine were otherwise applicable. There is an identity here, however. Since the trustees under the will are also the trustees of Brandon Fire District No. 1, the plaintiff argues from this that the title held by the trustees is thereby, through them, held by the defendant. The weakness of the plaintiff's position comes from identifying the defendant with its trustees. The selection of those office holders as trustees is not the same as selecting the defendant itself as trustee. The trust instrument, as quoted above, recognizes the distinction by providing for the possible appointment of trustees who have no connection with the Fire District. The language of the trust clearly places the responsibility of administering the trust upon the trustees themselves, and not upon the defendant. Miss Farr merely used the regularly elected officers of the defendant as a convenient source for suitable fiduciaries for her trust purposes, without compromising the separateness of her trust of the watershed lands. The plaintiff seeks to make out a case of possession of the watershed lands deriving from the duties placed on the defendant to clean the reservoirs annually to avoid termination of the trust. Since the trust imposes an obligation to deal with property the plaintiff identifies as part of the watershed property, he argues that the defendant can be validly listed as being in possession. He is defeated by the findings, which place the reservoirs concerned outside of the watershed property which is the subject of the trust. Judgment affirmed.