HANDVERGER v. City of Winooski
191 Vt. 84
| Vt. | 2011Background
- Handverger was Winooski city manager hired in 2007; city attorney was already in office.
- Dispute over the 2008 suspension of the city’s police chief led to a council hearing; the attorney represented the city and cross-examined witnesses.
- The attorney signed a letter and a press release urging Handverger’s resignation; Handverger was ultimately placed on paid leave and terminated.
- Handverger sued the city for wrongful dismissal and sued the city attorney personally for breach of fiduciary duty; the trial court granted summary judgment for the city attorney.
- Handverger argued the city attorney owed him a fiduciary duty personally, either by charter or by privity/relationship.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding the city attorney’s duty ran to the municipality, not to Handverger personally, and no fiduciary duty by operation of law or other relationship existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fiduciary duty owed personally by city attorney | Handverger argues a personal fiduciary duty existed | O'Brien owed duties only to the city | No personal fiduciary duty established |
| Effect of city charter on fiduciary duties | Charter creates duty to Handverger personally | Charter obligates attorney to municipality only | Charter does not create personal fiduciary duty to Handverger |
| Existence of fiduciary duty from privity or similar relationship | Privity/relationship implied duty to Handverger | No analogous privity or relationship with Handverger | No fiduciary duty arising from such relationship |
| Application of Perillo/other authorities to municipal attorney duties | Authorities imply broader fiduciary duty to employees | Perillo does not apply to create duty to employee in this context | Perillo does not establish personal fiduciary duty in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Bovee v. Gravel, 174 Vt. 486, 811 A.2d 137 (2002) (attorney represents corporation; duty owed to corporation not individuals)
- Ward v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. App. 3d 23, 138 Cal. Rptr. 532 (1977) (municipal counsel represents municipality, not officials individually)
- Salt Lake Cnty. Comm'n v. Salt Lake Cnty. Attorney, 1999 UT 73, 985 P.2d 899 (Utah Supreme Court 1999) (Rule 1.13: lawyer represents organization, not individuals)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 173 Vt. 1, 783 A.2d 430 (2001) (fiduciary duty among co-tenants; not applicable here)
- Carr v. Peerless Insurance Co., 168 Vt. 465, 724 A.2d 454 (1998) (agency/POA-related fiduciary duties; not present here)
- Perillo v. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 83 N.J. 366, 416 A.2d 801 (1980) (appearance of ethical propriety; not a fiduciary duty to employee)