The February 23, 2024 Bunch

By Andy Delaney

Three opinions this week. First, we deal with whether Rule 59 can save a possible pleading deficiency. Here, SCOV says “yes.” This case is about an airport, so naturally, we’re going to link to a punk-rock cover of John Denver’s classic Leaving on a Jet Plane. Plaintiff-developer’s EB5 breach-of-contract case was dismissed by the trial court. After the trial court dismissed the case, the trial court closed the file. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and permission to file an amended complaint. The trial court denied the motion and considered the matter closed. Plaintiff appeals, SCOV reverses, and we’re back to the beginning. We’ll see what happens next. Stowe Aviation, LLC v. Agency of Commerce & Community Development, 2024 VT 11.     

Next is an undue-influence case. The majority concludes that beneficiary’s $40K-to-buy-the-house bequeath from testator was a result of undue influence and that the trial court was correct to void that provision. The evidence at trial showed that beneficiary was buying things with testator’s money and withdrawing, literally, buckets of cash from the ATM in the time leading up to testator’s death. SCOV reasons there was a reasonable inference that if testator knew what beneficiary was doing, beneficiary would have been cut out of the will immediately. So, this one gets affirmed. Justice Carroll dissents and points out that no matter what one might think of beneficiary’s behavior, on the law, it’s not a clear establishment of grounds to void the will. Logically, the point is well-taken, but in application, it’s unlikely to carry the day. In re Crofut, 2024 VT 8.

Rounding out this week is a criminal matter. When SCOV underlines “in addition” on the first page of the opinion when describing one’s claims, one is not going to have a good time. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion for acquittal, certain conditions of probation, and the jury charge. SCOV affirms. At trial, defendant was convicted on two-out-of-three counts stemming from an incident where he choked complainant and, when she got away and was trying to call 911, threw a knife down the hallway at her sticking the handle into the wall. He’d been drinking. Before the case went to the jurors, defendant tried to get a self-defense charge and argued the evidence didn’t support his conviction but to no avail. On appeal, he argues that the no-booze-to-the-point-of-interference-with-work-and-family and his no-deadly-weapons probation conditions are also in error. None of it goes very far. Defendant tries to slice the bologna pretty thin when he argues that he couldn’t have threatened his girlfriend with a deadly weapon because he threw it at her back down the hallway. This goes, as you might have guessed, absolutely nowhere. Next, because the self-defense thing doesn’t get raised, it doesn’t get addressed. And finally, SCOV reasons, the probation conditions are reasonably related to the offense. State v. Phillips, 2024 VT 10.