Garbitelli v. Town of Brookfield
191 Vt. 76
| Vt. | 2011Background
- During 2007 townwide reappraisal, Garbitelli refused listers access beyond foyer and basement; property assessed at $1.6 million.
- Garbitelli appealed the 2007 assessment; this Court affirmed the denial due to lack of access and insufficient basis to challenge the assessment.
- In 2009, Garbitelli allowed listers entry, resulting in an assessment of $957,000.
- Garbitelli sought abatement for 2007 and 2008 under 24 V.S.A. § 1535(a)(4) alleging manifest error or lister’s mistake; Board denied.
- Superior Court, via Rule 75 review, affirmed the Board, holding no abuse of discretion and that abatement is not an avenue to re-argue valuations.
- Garbitelli argued (i) on-record review vs. de novo, (ii) Board’s failure to find manifest error was error, and (iii) collateral attack on 2007–2008 valuations via abatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Rule 75 review | Garbitelli seeks de novo review of abatement decision. | Board’s on-record review appropriate under Rule 75. | On-record review proper; not de novo absent statutory/directed circumstances. |
| Manifest error requirement | Manifest error need not be attributable to listers; disparity alone can suffice. | Manifest error must be tied to listers’ error under the statute. | Manifest error may be found without attributing it to the listers; caselaw governs, but court upholds Board's discretion here. |
| Abatement as relief for valuation challenges | Abatement can correct errors in valuations regardless of attribution. | Abatement is equitable, not a device to re-litigate valuations; Board may weigh equities. | Abatement is equitable; Board did not abuse discretion in denying despite disparity. |
| Constitutional proportional contribution claim | Disproportionate assessment supports abatement. | Abatement not constrained by uniform valuation goals; proportional contribution claim not applicable. | Proportional contribution claim not applicable in abatement; Board did not abuse discretion on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.M.M., 2011 VT 30 (2011) (establishes de novo review standards for questions of law)
- Chapin Hill Estates, Inc. v. Town of Stowe, 131 Vt. 10, 298 A.2d 815 (1972) (Reviewing court may take testimony; de novo review contemplated by Rule 75(d))
- State v. Forte, 159 Vt. 550, 624 A.2d 352 (1993) (limits on evidence upon appeal when transcript unavailable)
- Ketchum v. Town of Dorset, 2011 VT 49 (2011) (factors determining when on-the-record review is appropriate)
- Burroughs v. W. Windsor Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 141 Vt. 234, 446 A.2d 377 (1982) (Rule 75 review resembles appellate review of administrative actions)
- Royalton Coll., Inc. v. State Bd. of Educ., 127 Vt. 436, 251 A.2d 498 (1969) (discretionary rulings may be set aside only for abuse)
- M.T. Assocs. v. Town of Randolph, 2005 VT 112 (2005) (abatement context; uniform valuation not required in abatement action)
- Perry v. Med. Practice Bd., 169 Vt. 399, 737 A.2d 900 (1999) (statutory interpretation guiding review scope)