King v. Town of Craftsbury

King v. Town of Craftsbury (2004-312); 178 Vt. 623; 883 A.2d 771

2005 VT  86

[Filed 26-Jul-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT  86

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-312

                              APRIL TERM, 2005

  Steven King, Joseph E. Young and     }	APPEALED FROM:
  Jeannine A. Young	               }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Orleans Superior Court
                                       }	
  Town of Craftsbury	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 171-7-01 Oscv

                                                Trial Judge: Dennis R. Pearson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The Town of Craftsbury appeals the superior court's decision
  modifying a report submitted by county road commissioners who were assigned
  to determine the convenience and necessity of maintaining the class 3
  status of a road that the town selectboard had previously downgraded to a
  trail.  We reverse the superior court's decision and remand the matter for
  the court to consider evidence on the necessity and convenience of
  maintaining the road as a class 3 highway.

       ¶  2.  Appellees are persons living near the reclassified portion of
  the road, which includes a bridge that could be used to access appellees'
  residences.  The bridge fell into disrepair, and in 2001 appellees
  petitioned the county road commissioners to remedy the Town's failure to
  maintain it.  The commissioners did not timely respond to the petition,
  and, following a hearing, the town selectboard reclassified the portion of
  the road that included the bridge from a class 3 highway to a trail, which
  would not need to be maintained to handle vehicular traffic.  Within thirty
  days of that decision, appellees filed a complaint in superior court
  seeking injunctive relief against the Town.  After denying the Town's
  motion for summary judgment, the court appointed three commissioners to
  inquire into the convenience and necessity of maintaining the road as a
  class 3 highway.  See 19 V.S.A. §§ 751, 753.  When the first group of
  commissioners could not reach consensus, a second group was appointed and
  held a hearing, after which they filed a report determining that the Town
  should reinstate the road to class 3 status and request funding for repair
  of the bridge through the state bridge program.
   
       ¶  3.  The Town entered objections to the commissioners' report, and
  following a brief nonevidentiary hearing, the superior court adopted the
  commissioners' findings and conclusions, but also ruled that, under 19
  V.S.A. § 302(a)(3)(C), the Town had five years to bring the entire road,
  including the bridge, up to class 3 standards.  The Town expressed concerns
  in a motion for reconsideration that the five-year deadline would require
  them to pay the cost of reconstructing the bridge even if no state funding
  became available through the state bridge program.  The court denied the
  motion, noting that a satisfactory safety valve was provided by 19 V.S.A. §
  766, which permits a town to petition for an extension of time to complete
  the construction of a highway or bridge.  On appeal, the Town argues that
  the superior court erred (1) by not granting its motion for summary
  judgment based on appellees' failure to file a timely appeal of the town
  selectboard's decision to reclassify the road, and (2) by not taking
  evidence before modifying the commissioners' report.

       ¶  4.  We reject the Town's argument that the superior court should
  have granted it summary judgment based on appellees' failure to perfect an
  appeal from the selectboard's reclassification decision.  Within thirty
  days of the selectboard's decision, appellees filed a complaint in superior
  court asking the court, among other things, to order the selectboard "to
  reverse" its decision "downgrading" the road  and "to restore" the road's
  "Class Three Highway status."  Citing this language, the court concluded
  that appellees' complaint sufficed to put the Town on notice that appellees
  were appealing the selectboard's classification decision.  We agree.

       ¶  5.  We concur with the Town, however, that the superior court
  should have taken evidence before modifying the commissioners' report.  Cf.
  Hansen v. Town of Charleston, 157 Vt. 329, 332, 597 A.2d 321, 322 (1991)
  (rejecting commissioners' report after taking evidence).  In Hansen, we
  emphasized that the commissioners act essentially as factfinding masters
  under V.R.C.P. 53, and that the superior court, albeit in the role of an
  appellate court, is the exclusive decision maker.  See id. at 333-34, 597 A.2d  at 323; see also V.R.C.P. 53(e)(2)(iii) ("[T]he court after hearing
  may adopt the [commissioners'] report or may modify it or may reject it in
  whole or in part or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with
  instructions.").  In this case, there was no transcript of any hearings
  before the commissioners.  Instead, the superior court had before it a
  one-and-one-half-page report concluding that because the selectmen had
  reclassified the road to avoid the cost of repairing and maintaining the
  bridge, the public good did not require reclassifying the road to a trail. 
  There were no findings on (1) the cost of maintaining the road or repairing
  the bridge, (2) the extent of the use of the bridge or road, or (3) the
  existence or efficacy of alternate routes.  In short, the commissioners
  made no findings on the necessity and convenience of maintaining the class
  3 status of the road.  Absent such findings, we can make little sense of
  the commissioners' reasoning that the reclassification decision was not in
  the public good because it was done to save the cost of maintaining the
  road and repairing the bridge.  Moreover, having no record of hearings
  before the commissioners and taking no evidence itself, the superior court
  made no findings on the necessity and convenience of maintaining the road
  as a class 3 highway.  Yet, the court modified the commissioners' report by
  requiring the Town to bring the road and bridge up to class 3 standards
  within five years, irrespective of the whether the Town could obtain state
  funding to reconstruct the bridge.
        
       ¶  6.  On the current state of the record, it is impossible for this
  Court to determine whether there is any basis to support the superior
  court's decision.  See Fisher v. Poole, 142 Vt. 162, 170, 453 A.2d 408, 412
  (1982) ("When an appellate court is left in a position where it has to
  speculate as to the basis upon which the trial court reached its decision,
  it will refuse to speculate.").  Without information regarding the issue
  under consideration, especially where a balancing of competing concerns is
  mandated, the superior court could not exercise its discretion in any
  meaningful way.  Under these circumstances, the decision must be reversed
  and the matter remanded for the court to take evidence itself on the
  necessity and convenience of maintaining the road as a class 3 highway.

       Reversed and remanded.


                                       BY THE COURT:


                                       _______________________________________
                                       Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
     
                                       _______________________________________
                                       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice (Ret.), 
                                       Specially Assigned