Matthew Burgess v. Lamoille Housing Partnership, Town of Morristown, Mary Ann Wilson as Collector of Taxes and Sharon Green, Esq.
145 A.3d 217
Vt.2016Background
- In 2001 John and Virginia Burgess purchased a manufactured home through Lamoille Housing Partnership (LHP) under a land-lease scheme: Burgesses held the improvements; LHP held the underlying land; the Burgesses were obligated to pay property taxes.
- The Burgesses litigated tax liability in 2009; the Vermont Supreme Court later rejected their challenges. After that litigation, taxes became delinquent.
- In February 2012 the Town conducted a tax sale; Winston Jennison Investments, LLC was the winning bidder. Matthew Burgess (son) later paid $1,373 to the town’s attorney, Sharon Green, and received a certificate of redemption recorded in town records.
- Burgess alleged Green represented that if he paid the redemption amount he would be entitled to a tax collector’s deed a year and a day after the sale; he sued the Town, the town clerk, LHP, and Green for declaratory relief and damages when no deed issued.
- The superior court dismissed LHP and the municipal defendants and granted Green summary judgment on negligent misrepresentation; final judgment was entered for all defendants. Burgess appealed; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Burgess’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LHP should remain defendant under unjust enrichment/constructive trust | LHP was unjustly enriched by retaining title after Burgess redeemed; property should be held in constructive trust | No unjust-enrichment claim was pleaded; even if it were, LHP merely retained the position it always had and equity does not require disgorgement | Preserved claim absent; alternatively, no unjust enrichment — affirmed dismissal of LHP |
| Whether Town/town clerk must be parties / can be ordered to issue tax-collector’s deed | Towns are necessary parties for declaratory relief; Burgess sought a deed and injunctive relief against municipal defendants | Statute and law do not authorize issuance of a collector’s deed where property was redeemed; declaratory/injunctive relief cannot transfer title; municipal immunity applies to damages unless waived by insurance | Declaratory/injunctive relief unavailable; municipal defendants properly dismissed; no authority to order deed |
| Whether Town waived sovereign immunity by purchasing insurance | Burgess argued Town’s insurance might waive immunity under 29 V.S.A. § 1403 | Town/municipal defendants: policy did not cover these claims; intermunicipal VLCT participation does not waive immunity under 24 V.S.A. § 4946 | Court found no coverage on record and no waiver via VLCT participation; dismissal of municipal defendants on immunity grounds affirmed |
| Whether Sharon Green is liable for negligent misrepresentation | Burgess claimed Green told him payment would lead to a collector’s deed and he reasonably relied, suffering loss | Green: owed duty to Town not Burgess; no reasonable reliance given Burgess’s familiarity with tax-sale law; qualified immunity and lack of pecuniary duty bar recovery | Summary judgment for Green affirmed: no duty and, alternatively, reliance not justifiable as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bull v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., 752 A.2d 26 (Vt. 2000) (claims not raised in trial court are not preserved for appeal)
- Legault v. Legault, 459 A.2d 980 (Vt. 1983) (imposition of constructive trust/unjust enrichment requires that retaining benefit be unconscionable)
- Brookside Memorials, Inc. v. Barre City, 702 A.2d 47 (Vt. 1997) (equitable relief for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment requires totality-of-circumstances showing that equity demands recovery)
- Graham v. Town of Duxbury, 787 A.2d 1229 (Vt. 2001) (municipal immunity shields towns for governmental functions unless waived)
- White v. Quechee Lakes Landowners’ Ass’n, 742 A.2d 734 (Vt. 1999) (opposition to summary judgment must set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)
- McGee v. Vermont Fed. Bank, 726 A.2d 42 (Vt. 1999) (justifiable reliance in negligent-misrepresentation claims requires inability to verify representation)