Brown v. City of Barre, 878 F. Supp. 2d 469

The City of Barre, Vermont seeks summary judgment; plaintiffs Brown and Brooks cross-move in a certified class action regarding water service termination for tenants where landlords defaulted on water bills.
Plaintiffs allege §1983 violations based on procedural due process against the City’s Ordinance and Vermont’s Disconnect Statute.
Key statutory framework concerns Vermont’s Water Works Statute and the Disconnect Statute’s notice, appeal, and restoration provisions.
The court addresses whether plaintiffs have a protected property interest in water service under contract, statute, or other sources and whether Vermont’s Disconnect Statute and the City’s practices meet due process requirements.
The court applies Mathews v. Eldridge to determine what process is due for a water-service termination in this municipal context.
The court also analyzes equal protection implications of treating tenants differently from owners and of tenants seeking service in their own names.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have a protected property interest in water service.	Brown/Brooks rely on contract and statutory entitlement.	City argues no property interest in water service exists.	Plaintiffs have a statutory property interest; City’s practices may infringe due process.
Whether Vermont’s Disconnect Statute provides adequate procedural due process for tenants.	Disconnect Statute should extend protections to tenants.	Statute suffices, and City compliance may be adequate.	Disconnect Statute provides due process; City’s noncompliance with notice effects denial of due process; plaintiffs’ cross-motion denied on this point.
Whether the City’s Ordinance and practices violate procedural due process independently of the Disconnect Statute.	Ordinance fails to provide adequate notice and hearing rights to tenants.	Proceedings can be sustained with existing processes.	City’s notice and procedures are constitutionally deficient; City’s motion denied and plaintiffs’ cross-motion granted on this issue.
Whether there is an equal protection violation from landlord-based distinctions in water-service eligibility.	Tenants or non-owner tenants are treated differently without rational basis.	Rational distinctions exist between owners and tenants or delinquent vs non-delinquent landlords.	Court grants City summary judgment on equal protection claim; rational basis upheld.

Memphis Light, Gas and Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (due process limits on termination of essential utility service)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (definition of protected property interest)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. Supreme Court 1970) (due process in welfare benefits and procedural protections)
Ransom v. Marrazzo, 848 F.2d 398 (3d Cir. 1988) (tenant entitlement to utility service and due process)
Davis v. Weir, 497 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1974) (tenants’ due process rights in public utility provision)
Corcoran v. Village of Bennington, 128 Vt. 482 (Vt. 1970) (VT held water service duty cannot be denied to tenants)
Waldron v. Int’l Water Co., 112 A.2d 219 (Vt. 1921) (VT held water service rights for inhabitants)
Hawkins v. Vermont Hydro-Electric Corp., 126 A. 517 (Vt. 1924) (utility obligation to serve inhabitants)