By Andy Delaney

Three opinions this week. First,
we deal with whether Rule 59 can save a possible pleading deficiency. Here,
SCOV says “yes.” This case is about an airport, so naturally, we’re going to
link to a punk-rock cover
of John Denver’s classic Leaving on a Jet Plane. Plaintiff-developer’s
EB5 breach-of-contract case was dismissed by the trial court. After the trial
court dismissed the case, the trial court closed the file. Plaintiff moved for
reconsideration and permission to file an amended complaint. The trial court
denied the motion and considered the matter closed. Plaintiff appeals, SCOV
reverses, and we’re back to the beginning. We’ll see what happens next. Stowe
Aviation, LLC v. Agency of Commerce & Community Development, 2024
VT 11.     

Next is an undue-influence case. The
majority concludes that beneficiary’s $40K-to-buy-the-house bequeath from testator
was a result of undue influence and that the trial court was correct to void
that provision. The evidence at trial showed that beneficiary was buying things
with testator’s money and withdrawing, literally, buckets of cash from the ATM
in the time leading up to testator’s death. SCOV reasons there was a reasonable
inference that if testator knew what beneficiary was doing, beneficiary would
have been cut out of the will immediately. So, this one gets affirmed. Justice
Carroll dissents and points out that no matter what one might think of beneficiary’s
behavior, on the law, it’s not a clear establishment of grounds to void the
will. Logically, the point is well-taken, but in application, it’s unlikely to
carry the day. In re Crofut, 2024
VT 8.

Rounding out this week is a criminal matter. When SCOV underlines “in
addition” on the first page of the opinion when describing one’s claims, one is
not going to have a good time. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion for
acquittal, certain conditions of probation, and the jury charge. SCOV affirms.
At trial, defendant was convicted on two-out-of-three counts stemming from an
incident where he choked complainant and, when she got away and was trying to call 911, threw a knife down the hallway at her
sticking the handle into the wall. He’d been drinking. Before the case went to
the jurors, defendant tried to get a self-defense charge and argued the
evidence didn’t support his conviction but to no avail. On appeal, he argues
that the no-booze-to-the-point-of-interference-with-work-and-family and his
no-deadly-weapons probation conditions are also in error. None of it goes very
far. Defendant tries to slice the bologna pretty thin when he argues that he
couldn’t have threatened his girlfriend with a deadly weapon because he
threw it at her back down the hallway. This goes, as you might have guessed,
absolutely nowhere. Next, because the self-defense thing doesn’t get raised, it
doesn’t get addressed. And finally, SCOV reasons, the probation conditions are
reasonably related to the offense. State v. Phillips, 2024
VT 10.