Jones v. Hart
| Decision Date | 21 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2020-150 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert Jones, Janet Jones, and Jean Bombard v. James Hart and Matthew Wood |
On Appeal from Superior Court, Orange Unit, Civil Division Michael J. Harris, J.
Nicholas A. E. Low of Tarrant, Gillies, Richardson & Shems, Montpelier, for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Brice C. Simon of Breton & Simon, PLC, Stowe, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Hart.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson and Carroll, JJ., and Morris and Pearson, Supr. JJ. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
This appeal is the latest in an ongoing dispute between neighbors Robert and Janet Jones and James Hart. Following a three-day trial, a jury found that the Joneses trespassed and caused a private nuisance that interfered with Hart's use and enjoyment of his property and awarded Hart a total $60, 000 in damages, $15, 000 separately against Janet and Robert for each claim.[1] After trial, the court denied the Joneses' motion for a new trial or remittitur on the private-nuisance claim but granted the Joneses' motion for remittitur on the private-trespass claim. On appeal, the Joneses argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial or remittitur on the private-nuisance claim. On cross-appeal Hart argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion for remittitur on the private-trespass claim. For the reasons articulated below, we affirm.
¶ 2. To understand the issues on appeal, we begin with a detailed history of the contentious relationship between Hart and the Joneses. The record indicates the following. Both Hart and the Joneses own homes on Welch Loop, which is a private road owned by Hart through the James H. Hart Realty Trust. Welch Loop is a triangular road that has two access points along Vermont Route 5, which runs east-west at the relevant location. One segment of Welch Loop runs generally in a northwesterly direction from Route 5, and the other segment, which intersects Route 5 further to the west, runs in a northeasterly direction from Route 5 until it intersects with the more easterly segment.
¶ 3. For the past forty-five years, Robert and Janet Jones have lived in their home on Welch Loop, which is located to the east of Welch Loop approximately where the northwesterly segment intersects Route 5. Jean Bombard's[2] property borders the Joneses' property to the north, and her home is also located to the east of Welch Loop generally where the two segments forming Welch Loop intersect. Although both Bombard's and the Joneses' homes border the northwesterly segment of Welch Loop, they historically accessed their homes from Route 5 via a gravel driveway that is located to the east of Welch Loop on the Joneses' property. Bombard has a right-of-way to use the Joneses' driveway and can access her property from a steep driveway that extends from the Joneses' driveway.
¶ 4. Hart's home, which his great-grandfather bought in 1936, is located to the west of Bombard's home alongside the northeasterly segment of Welch Loop. The northeasterly segment has not been used as a driveway since the 1940s when Hart's great-grandfather grassed it in.
¶ 5. The following schematic generally depicts Welch Loop and the location of the parties' homes:[3]
(Image Omitted)
¶ 6. In 2012, the Joneses and Bombard filed suit against Hart, claiming they had (1)adversely possessed parking spaces in front of their homes on the northwesterly segment of Welch Loop; and (2) acquired a prescriptive easement to use the entirety of Welch Loop to access their homes, meaning both the northeasterly and northwesterly segments. Hart brought several counterclaims, asserting that (1) both the Joneses and Bombard trespassed on his property; (2)Bombard committed timber trespass by cutting a tree on his property; and (3) Janet committed slander.
¶ 7. In July 2012, a jury found that the Joneses had adversely possessed two nine-by seventeen-foot parking spaces in front of their home on Welch Loop. These parking spaces were separated by a nine-foot space, of which Hart maintained ownership. Bombard, on the other hand, did not prevail on her adverse-possession claim. The Joneses and Bombard prevailed in part on their prescriptive-easement claim and were granted a twenty-foot-wide easement solely on the northwesterly segment of Welch Loop to access their homes. Hart only prevailed on his private-trespass claim against the Joneses, and the jury awarded him $15, 000 in damages. In August 2012, the trial judge conducted a site visit, and a survey was completed-the so-called Bell Survey- which was the final determination of all the "disputed boundaries, easements, and rights of way."
¶ 8. In an August 2013 order, the court explained that it was Hart's responsibility to plow Welch Loop, but that the parties should equally share the cost of plowing. In the beginning of 2014, however, the parties filed several post-judgment motions requesting additional clarification on the issue of snowplowing. In March 2014, the court issued the following order:
There have been numerous motions post-judgment on the rights and remedies of the parties for the snow plowing of the [Welch Loop]. A jury has rendered its decision and the court has issued a formalized order as the exact whereabouts of the owned parking areas and the extent of use by the parties of the loop. One subject still in contention is snow removal of the loop. The court had previously ruled that [Hart] was to hire a person and the cost would be split in 3 equal shares. The parties have requested additional clarification. Noting that this is Vermont where it tends to snow in the winter, the court does not have the ability to micromanage every possible scenario involving snow removal. For example, during a large snow storm plowers tend to be busy and the court is without authority to require a 3rd party to plow the loop first. Likewise, the court will defer to the discretion of the plower as to when the driveway needs to be plowed. Finally, if for some reason the plower is not able to make it to the property and someone needs to leave, that party is free to shovel. As has previously been stated the Jones may shovel their walk way and their parking spots if needed for ingress and egress.
¶ 9. About a year later, the Joneses and Bombard filed another complaint against Hart, as trustee of the James H. Hart Realty Trust, generally alleging that Hart was regularly intruding onto and disrespecting their property to punish them for prevailing in the 2012 case, as well as overbilling them for snowplowing. Hart filed several counterclaims, including claims for private nuisance and trespass. Over the next several years, the parties repeatedly amended their pleadings and engaged in extensive motion practice.
¶ 10. By the time the parties went to trial in July 2019, the Joneses' and Bombard's claims were as follows: Hart (1) overbilled them for snowplowing[4]; (2) blocked Bombard's easement by parking, or letting others park, on the Welch Loop in front of her home; (3) created a private nuisance by erecting fences near the Joneses' parking spaces, Bombard's front porch, and Bombard's property line, as well as by parking a truck in the Route 5 right-of-way in front of the Joneses' home; (4) improperly parked an unregistered vehicle near Bombard's property to intentionally annoy and harass her; and (5) allowed trees on his property to fall on Bombard's property, causing damage to her front porch. Bombard separately alleged that she had acquired a prescriptive easement over a portion of Hart's property where she had erected a lamppost. The Joneses also alleged that the survey pins marking their parking spaces were inconsistent with the Bell Survey. Hart asserted counterclaims, alleging that the Joneses and Bombard (1) failed to pay snowplowing bills; (2) trespassed on his property; (3) cut trees on his property; (4) used their properties in a way to create a private nuisance; (5) intentionally caused Hart extreme emotional distress; (6) assaulted Hart; and (7) maliciously abused the judicial process and maliciously prosecuted certain claims.
¶ 11. After a three-day trial, a jury found that the Joneses (1) owed Hart approximately $3800 in plowing bills; (2) failed to demonstrate that the survey pins marking their parking spaces were inaccurate; and (3) did not prove that Hart engaged in private nuisance by installing fences near their parking spaces or parking his truck along the Route 5 right-of-way. As to Bombard's claims, the jury found that Hart (1) did not interfere with access to her easement; and (2) did not engage in private nuisance by erecting a fence in front of her porch. Finally, regarding Hart's counterclaims, the jury found that the Joneses trespassed and caused a private nuisance that interfered with Hart's use and enjoyment of his property and awarded $30, 000 for each claim.[5] Hart did not prevail in his claims against Bombard.
¶ 12. Following the verdict, the Joneses moved for a new trial arguing that (1) the jury instructions providing that Hart could recover for pain and suffering and mental anguish were erroneous; and (2) the jury verdict on the private-trespass and nuisance claims was not supported by the evidence. Alternatively, the Joneses moved to remit the $60, 000 jury award, arguing that it was clearly excessive because Hart did not present any evidence of damages with respect to either claim. The court denied the motion for a new trial. As to the jury instructions, the court concluded that the Joneses were precluded from challenging them because they failed to raise any objections at trial, during the charge conferences, or before the jury began its deliberations. As to the sufficiency...
To continue reading
Request your trial