Three opinions issued on July 11, 2025.
First up, plaintiff’s ex-husband allegedly used a fraudulently notarized document—thanks to a TD Bank employee—to swipe marital property in Serbia. So, she sued for negligence, negligent supervision, and respondeat superior. The trial court dismissed the complaint, relying on the economic-loss rule (no recovery for pure economic losses in tort without a special relationship). Because plaintiff never met the notary, wasn’t present for the notarization, and didn’t allege she was a TD Bank customer (until an after judgment attempt to amend), there's no special relationship.
Plaintiff appeals and SCOV affirms—no special relationship, no tort recovery, and no post-judgment amendments to save the day. Veljovic v. T.D. Bank, N.A., 2025 VT 38
Second, we have . . . I'm sorry, but this one cracks me up. We try to be—oh, I don't know—reasonably objective but sometimes a "family fight" like this one can be pretty funny.
Let's get ready to rumble . . .
The Auditor and the AG—two Vermont elected officials—get into a boxing match over "legal advice." The Auditor wanted the AG to answer some sticky questions about Burlington's tax increment financing (TIF) district. The AG answered one question, punted on two, and said other agencies had the real authority. So Auditor sued for mandamus (a court directing an inferior court or a person to perform a public or statutory duty) and declaratory judgment (this sez what I sez it sez), and wanted to confirm his right to hire outside counsel to sue the AG. The trial court tossed all claims and denied attorney's fees.
Auditor appeals.
SCOV acknowledges that Auditor can sue AG for mandamus if the AG refuses to provide legal advice under this statute. Auditor’s powers come from statute, not the Constitution, but the statute gives him enough juice to squeeze this orange.
But, just because it's possible doesn't mean it flies. And the AG did provide legal advice—just not the answers the Auditor wanted. SCOV reasons that mandamus can't force the AG to give different advice or a "yes/no" answer. The AG needs to do its advisin', not more than that. An aside: I can just imagine a client not liking my advice and suing for mandamus to make me change my answer. This could also make a reasonably entertaining game show. Back to our regularly scheduled programming . . . .
Though Auditor claimed the AG had a new policy of not answering his questions, SCOV reasons that the record showed otherwise. So . . . no live controversy, no declaratory judgment (or if you want to sound like a fancy lawyer, "moot").
And Auditor loses, so no attorney's fees. One can't use the Rules of Civil Procedure (54 in particular) to make the State pay your own lawyer just because you asked.
So while Auditor can sue for mandamus if AG totally refuses to advise, it won't pass muster if it's just because he doesn't like the advice. No fees, no go on the other claims. Everyone back to their corners. Auditor of Accounts v. Attorney General, 2025 VT 36.
Third and finally this week . . . are you familiar with a governor's warrant? Well, you're about to be. A governor's warrant is an extradition tool. It's a legal document issued by a state's governor authorizing the arrest and transfer of an individual to another state or jurisdiction for criminal prosecution or to fulfill a sentence.
Here, Mr. Fredrick challenged his confinement in Vermont on a governor's warrant for extradition to New York on a second-degree murder charge. He claimed the paperwork from New York lacked an authenticated copy of the indictment, as required by statute. The trial court said the extradition requirements were met and denied habeas relief.
So Mr. Fredrick appealed.
Before SCOV could rule on this issue though, the governor's warrant was withdrawn and replaced with a new warrant—including the missing grand jury foreperson's signature. So, Mr. Fredrick is now held under the new warrant, and a fresh habeas petition is pending.
Remember how we talked about "moot" before? Well . . . SCOV says the appeal is moot. The original warrant is gone, and Fredrick is held under a new one. And as we know: ain't no live controversy, then ain't no effective relief possible. (Haha. "Ain't no." My legal writing professors probably pull their hair out if they read this blog).
SCOV also reasons that no exception to mootness applies. There are no negative collateral consequences, and this isn't a capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review situation. SCOV notes that Mr. Fredrick could have expedited the appeal but he did not. Hmm. This one gets the moot boot. In re Fredrick, 2025 VT 37
Comments
Post a Comment