Mohr v. Village of Manchester, 92-546
Citation | 161 Vt. 562,641 A.2d 89 |
Decision Date | 17 September 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-546,92-546 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Parties | Raymond M. and Ann L. MOHR v. VILLAGE OF MANCHESTER (Frank Harrigan, James D. & Carolyn Stewart, Intervenors). |
Before ALLEN, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
This appeal concerns appellants' right to contest the Manchester Village Planning Commission's approval of the Mohrs' application to erect a structure on their property. Appellants Frank Harrigan and the Stewarts, adjoining landowners, claim that the trial court erred by failing to grant them their statutory right to intervene as interested persons, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471. Section 4471 provides that "[a]n interested person may appeal a decision of a board of adjustment to the superior court" and mandates that notice be sent "to every interested person appearing and having been heard at the hearing before the board" who then, upon motion, "shall be granted leave by the court to intervene."
It is undisputed that appellants were interested persons as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(3), and thus had a statutory right to intervene. It is also undisputed that appellants were not served with notice of appeal as mandated by § 4471. The issue then is whether the trial court was required to allow appellants to exercise their statutory right by granting their motion to intervene. While appellants had a right to intervene, the trial court has discretion to deny intervention where the motion is untimely. See Ernst v. Rocky Road, Inc. 141 Vt. 637, 639-40, 450 A.2d 1159, 1160 (1982) ( ). Here, however, the trial court denied appellants' motion without explaining why it was denied. We cannot review the trial court's exercise of discretion where there is no record of how that decision was reached. We therefore remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of appellants' motion to intervene.
Appellant Village of Manchester claims that the Mohrs failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the superior court because they did not timely file their notice of appeal with the Planning Commission, as required under V.R.C.P. 74(b). This Court has previously held that the failure to file a notice of appeal, brought under 24 V.S.A. § 4471, with the clerk or other officer of the tribunal appealed from, here the Planning Commission, within the required time deprives the court of jurisdiction over the appeal. See Harvey v. Town of Waitsfield, 137 Vt. 80, 82, 401 A.2d 900, 901 (1979). There is no indication in the record that the Mohrs ever filed their notice of appeal with the Planning Commission or its clerk. The Mohrs instead filed a notice of appeal with the superior court within the required time.
V.C.R.P. 74(b) requires that appeals from decisions of government agencies shall be made "in the manner and within the time provided in Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure." V.R.C.P. 74(b). In 1985 this Court amended V.R.A.P. 4 by adding the following sentence:
If a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed in the Supreme Court, the clerk of the Supreme Court shall note thereon the date on which it was received and transmit it to the clerk of the superior court or district court, and it shall be deemed filed in the superior or district court on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Shantee Point, Inc.
...of the statute appears to support the environmental court's decision, we also recognize that we held in Mohr v. Village of Manchester, 161 Vt. 562, 562, 641 A.2d 89, 90 (1993), that an adjoining landowner was an interested person who had a statutory right to intervene in an appeal taken by ......
-
Barrup v. Barrup
...we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to deny the intervention as untimely. See Mohr v. Vill. of Manchester, 161 Vt. 562, 562, 641 A.2d 89, 90 (1993) (mem.) (noting that the trial court has the discretion to deny intervention as of right when the motion is unti......
-
State v. Quiros
...court makes no finding regarding timeliness, we review this factor de novo." (citation omitted)); cf. Mohr v. Vill. of Manchester, 161 Vt. 562, 562, 641 A.2d 89, 90 (1993) (mem.) (remanding appeal of order denying Rule 24 motion because of insufficient "record of how that decision was reach......
-
State v. Quiros, 2018-251
...court makes no finding regarding timeliness, we review this factor de novo." (citation omitted)); cf. Mohr v. Vill. of Manchester, 161 Vt. 562, 562, 641 A.2d 89, 90 (1993) (mem.) (remanding appeal of order denying Rule 24 motion because of insufficient "record of how that decision was reach......