Donald Bishop v. Town of Springfield, 2016-128

Plaintiff owned a building damaged by fire in November 2012; it remained unrepaired for about two years.
In November 2014 the Town fire chief filed a complaint under the Town nuisance ordinance alleging the structure was unsafe.
A three-person committee inspected the property and reported to the Town select board, which initially found the building to be a public nuisance and ordered demolition.
Plaintiff appealed; the Board held hearings in January and February 2015 where the Town presented a committee representative and a licensed structural engineer; plaintiff testified but presented no expert testimony at the continued hearing.
The Board found extensive structural damage (over 50% of nonsupporting walls, about one-third of supporting members destroyed or damaged, bowed/leaking roof, cracked foundation) and concluded demolition was required under the ordinance.
Superior Court affirmed under the deferential standard of review; plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court raising due process and sufficiency-of-evidence claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board violated due process by not affording an opportunity to repair	Plaintiff: due process required chance to repair before demolition	Town: Board followed ordinance and afforded hearings; evidence showed repair was not reasonable	Waived on appeal for failure to preserve below; trial court had no chance to rule on distinct constitutional claim
Whether Board applied correct standard of review	Plaintiff: trial court used incorrect/deferential standard	Town: trial court used proper deferential standard from Garbitelli	Court: proper standard applied; municipal findings reviewed for any competent evidence
Whether demolition was premature because plaintiff had pending insurance claim	Plaintiff: Town should have waited for insurance resolution	Town: public safety permitted immediate action; Board considered plaintiff’s position	Rejected — Board not required to wait months when building found unsafe
Whether evidence supported findings that demolition was necessary (unsafe, irreparable, ≥50% damage)	Plaintiff: evidence insufficient to show irreparable damage or required percentage of deterioration	Town: structural engineer’s testimony and photos showed substantial, widespread, and progressive damage making repair unreasonable	Affirmed — engineer’s competent testimony supported Board’s findings and demolition order

Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield, 191 Vt. 76 (2011) (articulates deferential review: evidentiary questions tested for any competent evidence)
Eno v. City of Burlington, 125 Vt. 8 (1965) (municipal nuisance determinations are persuasive and presumptively correct)
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 189 Vt. 518 (2010) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)