Post and Beam Equity Group, LLC and Post and Beam of Mt. Snow, LLC
2015 Vt. 60
Vt.2015Background
- P&B owns two parcels in West Dover: Parcel 1 with restaurants and parking, Parcel 2 parking lots; Parcel 2 is within the Sunne Village subdivision; Parcel 1 is not part of the subdivision.
- The Sunne Village Lane easement over Parcel 2 was deeded for access to Parcel 2; the easement is common ownership with a perpetual right of way for lot owners.
- POA blocked Sunne Village Lane access with boulders and later a guardrail, restricting P&B’s restaurant parking access without notice, harming business.
- In negotiations, POA claimed the deeded easement was residential-only and sought to replace it with a revocable license; P&B refused and continued to use Route 100 access as negotiations continued.
- P&B sued in 2012 seeking declaratory relief on easements, nuisance damages, VCIOA violations, and fiduciary duties, among other relief, plus attorney’s fees.
- Trial court found an express easement for Parcel 2 but not for Parcel 1’s commercial use, found a prescriptive easement into Parcel 1, and awarded nuisance damages, punitive damages, and VCIOA/attorney’s fees; compensatory damages were later reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensatory damages for nuisance | P&B contends obstruction reduced patronage and revenues. | POA argues no reliable basis to award lost profits; record insufficient to prove damages. | Compensatory damages reversed for lack of proof of lost profits; revenue loss alone insufficient absent cost impact evidence. |
| Nuisance existence | Interference with use of land by barricades was substantial and unreasonable. | No actual harm proven; interference may be incidental. | Nuisance established; obstruction was an unreasonable and substantial interference affecting use and enjoyment. |
| Punitive damages | POA’s conduct was malicious, deceptive, and conduct worthy of punishment. | Insufficient malice; administrative lapses do not justify punitive damages. | Punitive damages affirmed; conduct showed true reprehensible intent and bad faith toward members. |
| Attorney’s fees under VCIOA | Fees recoverable for VCIOA-related and common core of facts claims. | Fees should be limited to VCIOA claims after they were raised; separation of claims urged. | Fees awarded under VCIOA affirmed; court properly bundled claims with common core of facts; allocation within abuse-of-discretion standard. |
| Scope of deeded easement | Deeded easement authorizes access for Parcel 2 and should extend to commercial patrons. | Easement limited to residential purposes and normal access; commercial use burden would overburden servient estate. | Deed does not extend to patrons’ commercial access; easement interpreted in light of original purpose and burden on servient estate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coty v. Ramsey Assocs., Inc., 149 Vt. 451 (Vt. 1988) (nuisance damages include loss of use and annoyance)
- Foti Fuels, Inc. v. Kurrle Corp., 195 Vt. 524 (Vt. 2013) (lost profits require proof of profit margins to avoid speculative damages)
- Rowe v. Lavanway, 180 Vt. 505 (Vt. 2006) (express easement interpretation; intent governs; burden on dominant estate)
- DeGraff v. Burnett, 182 Vt. 314 (Vt. 2007) (interpretation of express easements; ambient evidence admissible)
- L’Esperance v. Benware, 175 Vt. 292 (Vt. 2003) (attorney’s fees; discretion in award; common-core-facts analysis)
- Barrett v. Kunz, 158 Vt. 15 (Vt. 1992) (interpretation of contracts and servitudes; intent governs)
- Nystrom v. Hafford, 2012 VT 60 (Vt. 2012) (claims with a common core of facts; PPA-like fee considerations discussed)