Jette v. City of Rutland
| Docket Number | 21-AP-270 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 2022 |
| Parties | Raymond C. Jette v. City of Rutland (Kamberleigh Johnston*) |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.
APPEALED FROM: Property Valuation and Review CASE NOS 2019-034 & 2019-035
ENTRY ORDER
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Grievant Kamberleigh Johnston appeals pro se from the decision of the Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) dismissing his challenge to the way 49 and 52 Pine Street are listed in the City of Rutland's 2019 grand list. We affirm.
Grievant's mother owns several contiguous properties in the Pine Street neighborhood of Rutland that are listed as a single parcel in the City's grand list for taxation purposes. Grievant filed a grievance to the listers regarding the 2019 grand list, arguing that 49, 50, and 52 Pine Street should be listed as part of mother's parcel because they were under mother's control and were contiguous with her other properties. The listers denied the grievance, and grievant appealed to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA). The BCA found that 50 Pine Street was not contiguous with mother's parcel or owned by her. The BCA also noted in its decision that "even though it was not appealed, [grievant] felt 49, 50 & 52 Pine St. should be included as part of [mother's parcel] as they own 'leased' property but [this could] not be substantiated."
Grievant appealed to the Director of PVR. The City moved to dismiss the appeal as defective, arguing that the appraisal for 50 Pine Street had not been appealed to the BCA and therefore was not heard by them. The City further argued that 49 and 52 Pine Street were owned by Raymond Jette, who had not appealed the appraisals for 2019 and had not authorized grievant to appeal for him.
A PVR hearing officer denied the City's motion. She reasoned that the grievance process begins with a challenge to the decision of the listers on any matter, which could include how property is listed in the grand list. She found that grievant's claim throughout the process had been that mother was the owner of 49 and 52 Pine Street for tax purposes pursuant to perpetual lease agreements (PLAs) grievant filed in 2018 in the City land records. She determined that grievant brought these claims to the listers which effectively rejected them by not addressing them, and then to the BCA, which also rejected them. She noted that with certain exceptions, the law requires property leased in perpetuity to be listed to the lessee, and for purposes of listing property in the grand list, a parcel consists of all contiguous land in the same ownership. She accordingly concluded that grievant had stated a claim for relief because he was arguing on behalf of his mother that the properties should be listed as part of her parcel on the 2019 grand list, based on the 2018 PLAs between her and Jette. She concluded that grievant therefore was entitled to a hearing because he had followed the appeals process. However, she noted that "whether he was authorized to do so, and whether his legal theory is correct, are substantive matters for the PVR hearing officer to decide."
An evidentiary hearing for each property was held before a different hearing officer in February 2021. Prior to the hearings, the City again moved to dismiss the appeals because grievant did not have authority from Jette to appeal the listers' acts with regard to the properties. In separate written decisions, the hearing officer found that Jette had purchased 49 and 52 Pine Street in June 2017. The hearing officer reasoned that only the owner of a property can appeal its valuation in the grand list, and Jette had not appealed the 2019 appraisal. He further found that grievant had no ownership interest in the subject properties on April 1 2019, and therefore had no right to challenge the appraisals. The hearing officer did not decide whether the 2018 PLAs purporting to make grievant's mother a perpetual lessee were valid, concluding that even if they were and mother had a right to appeal, there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial