Bassett v. Vermont Tax Department, 291-76
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 291-76,291-76 |
| Citation | 135 Vt. 257,376 A.2d 731 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | C. David BASSETT, Administrator of the Louise S. Thorn Estate v. VERMONT TAX DEPARTMENT. |
Richard E. Davis and Gary D. McQuesten, of Richard E. Davis Assoc., Inc., Barre, for plaintiff.
M. Jerome Diamond, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Finn and Greg E. Studen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW and BILLINGS, JJ., and SHANGRAW (C. J., Ret.), Specially Assigned.
Decedent, Louise S. Thorn, was killed in an airplane crash, and the claim for her wrongful death resulted in a substantial settlement. The Probate Court for the District of Washington included that settlement amount in computing the decree fee established by 32 V.S.A. § 1434(6) as payable to the state upon the "residue" of an estate when the estate is distributed. The $2340.00 decree fee involved has been paid under protest. Her administrator brought suit for recovery of the claimed excessive fee in Washington Superior Court, where the Vermont Tax Department was substituted for the probate judge as party defendant. The trial court, misconstruing the action as a probate appeal, "affirmed" the judgment of the probate court, in effect giving judgment for the defendant. This appeal resulted.
The decree fee charged (which appears to have been erroneously computed in the first instance) includes an assessment on the $133,333.33 wrongful death settlement. Pursuant to 14 V.S.A. § 1492(c), distribution of that settlement to the Estate of Viola H. Thorn and to Perley A. Thorn had previously been ordered by the Washington Superior Court under a petition brought to it for that purpose. The residue in the estate for distribution, if the $133,333.33 settlement is not included, was $105,555.52, and a correct decree fee, computed on that amount, would have been $1055.00. At issue, therefore, is a claimed recovery of $1285.00 overcharge.
Without reciting at length the mathematical formula for assessment of the decree fee, 32 V.S.A. § 1434(6) establishes a fee, payable to the probate judge for the benefit of the state, for the distribution "of each estate", based upon the "value of such residue of the estate". The appellee State contends this fee is in the nature of a tax, and that the settlement proceeds are part of the "residue" of the estate. The appellant executor, on the contrary, says that the wrongful death recovery is not a part of the decedent's estate or of the residue of that estate, that a probate fee is not proper when the distribution was in fact determined by the superior and not the probate court, and that, lacking any relation to work actually performed by the probate court, the assessment as made constitutes a tax without legislative authority.
We do not feel it necessary for disposition of this case to consider all the contentions made by the parties, both here and below. To us it is quite apparent that the net proceeds of the settlement are not such part of the probate estate, or of its "residue" as to be subject to the fee imposed by the statute, whether it be considered a tax or not. It is a primary rule of statutory construction, which we have often recognized, that the plain meaning of a statutory enactment, when ascertainable, must be observed. Standard Register Company v. Commissioner of Taxes, Vt., 376 A.2d 41, 1977 (this day decided); Camp v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 131 Vt. 536, 310 A.2d 35 (1973). Applying that principle, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tatum v. Schering Corp.
...McLean Trucking Co., 506 F.Supp. 1252 (E.D.Tex.1981); Morrison v. Perry, 104 Utah 151, 140 P.2d 772 (1943); see Bassett v. Vermont Tax Dept., 135 Vt. 257, 376 A.2d 731 (1977); see also Allen v. Moore, 109 Vt. 405, 199 A. 257 (1938); Cassady v. Martin, 220 Va. 1093, 266 S.E.2d 104 (1980); Kr......
-
Eddy's Estate, In re
...no apparent basis for the classification which in fact resulted from the legislation. (3) As we pointed out in Bassett v. Vermont Tax Department, 135 Vt. ---, 376 A.2d 731 (1977), our estate tax seems to preempt the field which this levy would invade. Based upon the federal estate tax and l......
-
In re Estate of Dezotell
...persons in such manner as the superior court ... shall deem proper and after a hearing.” Id. § 1492(c) ; see Bassett v. Vt. Tax Dep't, 135 Vt. 257, 259, 376 A.2d 731, 733 (1977) (“Clearly, under the statute, distribution is to be in direct proportion to pecuniary injuries suffered from the ......
-
Chittenden Trust Co. v. MacPherson
...urges, however, that two of our prior holdings tend to negate this result, at least implicitly. It cites Bassett v. Vermont Tax Department, 135 Vt. 257, 376 A.2d 731 (1977), and In re Estate of Mahoney, 126 Vt. 31, 220 A.2d 475 (1966), as examples of collateral attack on probate decrees. Bo......
-
Ruminations
...133 Vt. 467, 346 A.2d 210 (1975). [45] In re Lampman, 135 Vt. 226, 228, 373 A.2d 547, 548(1977). [46] Bassett v. Vermont Tax Department, 135 Vt. 257, 376 A.2d 731 (1977) [47] Green Mountain Power Corp. v. Commissioner of Labor and Industry, 136 Vt. 15, 383 A.2d 1046(1978). [48] Appeal of Fa......