Cynosure v. Champlain Valley Dispensary, 25-cv-371

Cynosure, Inc. (landlord) obtained an ex parte Order approving attachment of two bank accounts held in tenant Champlain Valley Dispensary’s name at Eastrise Credit Union.
Intervenor Acquiom Agency Services (secured creditor) claimed superior rights to the same accounts and moved to dissolve the trustee process.
After hearings and briefing, the court granted Acquiom’s motion and dissolved the trustee process.
Cynosure moved for permission to file an interlocutory appeal under V.R.A.P. 5(b) and 5.1(a), arguing dissolution would irreparably impair its ability to collect a future judgment.
The court denied permission to appeal: it found the Rule 5(b) criteria unmet (order not a controlling issue of law affecting the core litigation) and declined collateral-order review under Rule 5.1(a) because Cynosure failed to show the order would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether interlocutory appeal is permitted under V.R.A.P. 5(b) (controlling question of law; advances termination)	Cynosure: dissolution of trustee process is appealable and affects its ability to collect judgment from Eastrise accounts	Acquiom: (implicit) the order is collateral and does not control the substantive lease dispute; interlocutory review unnecessary	Denied — court found the order not a controlling legal question that would materially advance termination of the litigation
Whether collateral-order interlocutory appeal is permitted under V.R.A.P. 5.1(a) (conclusive, separate, effectively unreviewable)	Cynosure: dissolution will allow depletion of assets and render any future judgment ineffectual (irreparable harm)	Acquiom: did not contest conclusive/separate nature; argued (implicitly) that funds would be available or that appeal can wait	Denied — court found conclusive/separate criteria met but Cynosure failed to show the order would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment

In re Pyramid Co. of Burlington, 141 Vt. 294, 449 A.2d 915 (Vt. 1982) (articulates V.R.A.P. 5(b) criteria and narrow scope for interlocutory appeals)
In re F.E.F., 156 Vt. 503, 594 A.2d 897 (Vt. 1991) (explains collateral-order doctrine and its limited, discretionary nature)
In re J.G., 160 Vt. 250, 627 A.2d 362 (Vt. 1993) (example of interlocutory review where delay would cause irreparable loss of important rights)
State v. Haynes, 2019 VT 44, 210 Vt. 417 (Vt. 2019) (recognizes trial court discretion in granting/denying interlocutory appeal)
State v. Lafayette, 148 Vt. 288, 532 A.2d 560 (Vt. 1987) (defines ‘‘effectively unreviewable’’ as rights likely lost if review delayed)
NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze & Bagby, P.L.L.C., 745 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2014) (federal authority on what constitutes a conclusively determined issue for collateral-order review)
In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 401 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 2005) (federal discussion of unreviewability prong; interim financial awards not automatically "effectively unreviewable")