Dover Town School Dist. v. Simon

Annotate this Case
ENTRY_ORDER.93-406; 162 Vt. 630; 650 A.2d 514

 [Filed:  05-Oct-1994]

                            ENTRY ORDER

                  SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-406

                       SEPTEMBER TERM, 1994


 Dover Town School District   }        APPEALED FROM:
                              }
                              }
      v.                      }        Windham Superior Court
                              }
 Robert & Yvonne Simon        }
                              }        DOCKET NO. S169-90WmC


         In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

Defendants appeal a Windham superior court judgment ordering them to pay
$5,800 plus interest and costs to plaintiff for nonresident tuition.  We
affirm. 

At all relevant times defendants were residents of Wilmington, Vermont. 
Defendants own property and pay taxes in the towns of Wilmington and Dover,
Vermont.  Wilmington and Dover are separate independent school districts.  In
1987, defendants represented to Frank Vara, principal of the Dover Elementary
School, that they intended to make Dover their home and therefore would be
enrolling their children in the Dover Elementary School.  Vara informed
defendants that they would not be required to pay tuition if they did in fact
become Dover residents.  In September 1987, defendants enrolled their two
children in Dover Elementary School, but defendants never became residents of
Dover. 

When efforts to collect tuition from defendants failed, plaintiff brought suit
in Windham superior court.  Defendants argued that school districts have no
statutory authority to demand payment of nonresident pupil tuition directly
from parents.  After hearing the matter on the merits, the trial court found
defendants liable for nonresident tuition and ordered them to pay the school
district.  In reaching its conclusion, the trial court relied on 16 V.S.A. 
1093, which provides: 

         The Board may receive into the schools under its charge
         nonresident pupils under such terms and restrictions as it deems
         best and money received for the instruction of such pupils shall be
         paid into the school fund of the district.

On appeal, defendants contend that the trial court's ruling allowing school
districts to impose personal liability on parents of nonresident students is
erroneous as a matter of law, and that school districts receiving voluntary
nonresident pupils are required to collect tuition from the pupils' home
school districts.  See  16 V.S.A.  823  ("tuition for elementary pupils
shall be paid by the district in which the pupil is a resident"). 

 

Defendants have taken  823 completely out of context.  Section 823 relates
only to students who attend schools in other districts because their home
district has no school.  It is part of Title 16, chapter 21 which requires
school districts to maintain certain schools and schooling opportunities for
their residents.  16 V.S.A.  821-834 ("Maintenance of Public Schools").
Sections 821-830 address tuition sources for resident pupils and involuntary
nonresident pupils. Section 821 addresses the payment of tuition for students
who attend schools in their home districts.  Section 824 mandates home
districts pay tuition for involuntary high school pupils. Under  830, the
Department of Social Services is responsible for reimbursing the host school
for expenses in providing for the education of children in their care who do
not reside with their parents.  In contrast, chapter 25 of Title 16, 
1071-1165, addresses "Attendance and Discipline."  Within subchapter 2,
entitled "Assignment of Pupils to Schools, Tuition,"  1093 addresses
nonresident pupils.  Section 1093 is the controlling statute in this matter. 

In construing a statute, our objective is to effectuate legislative intent. 
Burlington Elec. Dept. v. Vermont Dept. of Taxes, 154 Vt. 332, 335-36, 576 A.2d 450, 452 (1990).  We rely on the plain meaning of the words to interpret
a statute because we presume it reflects the Legislature's intent.  Id. 
Although  1093 does not explicitly authorize school districts to demand
payment from parents, it implicitly gives school districts the discretion to
do so. Because 16 V.S.A.  821-834 mandates local school boards to provide
public schools for their own residents, we believe the Legislature intended to
give school boards broad discretion in controlling the influx of voluntary
nonresident pupils via  1093.  Section 1093's permissive language, "may
receive," authorizes school boards to accept voluntary nonresident students. 
The phrase "under such terms and restrictions as it deems best" provides
school boards with the discretion and authority to dictate how such pupils are
received.  Finally, the phrase "money received for the instruction of such
pupils" is synonymous with tuition.  Therefore, plaintiff was well within its
authority to demand tuition payment directly from defendants for the education
of defendants' children. 

Affirmed. 



                                    BY THE COURT:


                                    _______________________________________
                                    Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice

                                    _______________________________________
                                    Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

                                    _______________________________________
                                    John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
 Publish
                                    _______________________________________
                                    James L. Morse, Associate Justice
 Do Not Publish
                                    _______________________________________
                                    Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.