Town of Plainfield v. Lynch, Lynch and Parry - Decision on Contempt

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division Docket No. 24-ENV-00031
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Town of Plainfield,
Plaintiff,

v. Decision on Contempt

Devin Lynch, Ashley Lynch, and Seth Parry,
Respondents.

This is a zoning enforcement action brought by the Town of Plainfield (Town) against Ashley
Lynch, Devin Lynch, and Seth Parry (Respondents) for unpermitted residential use of a recreational
vehicle (RV) on the property located at 79 Bean Road in Plainfield, Vermont (the Property).
On February 27, 2025, the Court ordered Respondents to cease any unauthorized use of an
RV on the Property within 30 days, and to not engage in further residential use of an RV without first
receiving Town approval. Town of Plainfield v. Lynch & Lynch, No. 24-ENV-00031, slip op. at 8
(Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Feb. 27, 2025) (McLean, J.) (February Merits Decision). The Court’s ruling
was not appealed.
Later, on May 8, 2025, the Court found Respondents in contempt of the February Merits
Decision and imposed a purgeable contempt sanction of $45 per day. Town of Plainfield v. Lynch &
Lynch, No. 24-ENV-00031, slip op. at 4 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. May 8, 2025) (McLean, J.) (May 8
Contempt Decision). The Court set this case for a follow up hearing and explained that Respondents
would have the burden of proving that they are no longer in contempt. Notice was sent out for a
follow up hearing to occur on June 16, 2025 at 9:00 AM.
On June 16, 2025 at 9:00 AM, the Court convened the scheduled follow-up hearing on
Respondents’ contempt. The Town appeared through its attorney Michael Tarrant, Esq.
Respondents did not appear despite receiving notice from the Court.
Findings of Fact
As explained in the May 8 Contempt Decision, Respondents shall have the burden of proving
they are no longer in contempt. See, e.g., Vt. R. Fam. P. Rule 16(d)(1) (“The respondent has the
burden of showing that the contempt has been purged.”); Vt. R. Prob. P. Rule 72(d) (“Purging
Contempt”). Thus, by failing to appear, Respondents have not met their burden of proving that they
have purged their contempt. After acknowledging this outcome at the June 16 hearing, the Court
gave the Town the opportunity to put on any evidence in support of its requested relief. Based on
that evidence, we find as follows:
1. Karen Story, the Town Zoning Administrator has visited the property located at 79 Bean Road
(the Property) since the Court’s May 8, 2025 Contempt Decision. She has visited the Property at
various times, ranging from 3:30 AM to 8:00 PM.
2. The RV, which was the subject of this Court’s prior decisions, remains on the Property.
3. A dog is still being kept at the Property and was observed as recently as 6:30 AM on June 16,
2025.
4. The dog is tied to a chain and has lost a lot of weight since the May 8, 2025 hearing. Ms. Story
is concerned for its wellbeing.
5. The Town has received no information regarding a new address for Respondent Devin Lynch,
who has been residing in the RV.
6. There is mail in the mailbox on the Property.
7. Kim Nolan, a neighboring landowner, has continued to observe the Property since the May 8,
2025 Contempt Decision.
8. Respondent Devin Lynch and his girlfriend have visited the Property on at least one occasion.
9. On another occasion, Respondent Devin Lynch and his father loaded six to eight garbage bags
into a truck and rolled some tires away.
10. In addition to the dog, there is also a yellow cat that belongs to Mr. Lynch, which can be found
roaming around outside and across neighboring properties.
11. It is unclear whether the RV has been disconnected from utilities. This is because the grass
surrounding the RV has become overgrown and unkempt.
12. Three small propane tanks have been relocated to the back of the RV.
13. Bram Towbin, the Plainfield Town Clerk, is familiar with the Property, which has been a
source of concern and frustration for the Town for some time.
14. Mr. Towbin has received weekly phone call complaints for the last year and a half regarding
the Property.
15. Mr. Towbin has had ongoing conversations with the Town’s animal control officer and Town
constable regarding the dog residing on the Property.
16. Mr. Towbin has visited the Property to provide food and water for the dog; he is concerned
about the dog’s welfare.
17. The Town has the capacity to remove the RV and the animals from the Property and provide
safe and secure accommodations for both.
18. It may be necessary to relocate other obstacles on the Property, including motor vehicles, to
remove the RV without damaging it.
Discussion
The Court has discretion to craft appropriate contempt sanctions to coerce compliance with
its prior orders. Town of Pawlet v. Banyai, 2024 VT 13, ¶ 6. For civil contempt, the sanctions must
be purgeable, meaning that respondents can avoid such sanctions by adhering to the court’s orders.
Mayo v. Mayo, 173 Vt. 459, 463 (2001).
In the May 8, 2025 Contempt Decision, the Court imposed a purgeable fine of $45 per day
and provided explicit instructions for how Respondents could demonstrate compliance. The June 16
hearing was Respondents’ opportunity to prove that they purged themselves of the contempt and
avoid any fines and penalties. By failing to appear and demonstrate compliance, the $45 daily penalty
becomes final for the period running from May 9, 2025 through June 16, 2025 (a total of 38 days).
Thus, Respondents are liable for $1,710 in penalties, which shall be paid to the Town.1
The Court is not convinced that additional monetary penalties will be successful in achieving
compliance. See Spabile v. Hunt, 134 Vt. 332, 334 (1976) (explaining that a court should “take into
account all factors relating to the particular nature of contemnor’s disobedience in determining what
action on the court’s behalf is required.”) The $45 daily penalty was insufficient to compel
Respondents’ participation at the June 16 hearing. Thus, a more direct approach is appropriate.

1 Based on the evidence presented by the Town, it appears that Respondent Devin Lynch has made some effort
to discontinue using the RV as a residence. Unfortunately, Mr. Lynch did not appear for the hearing to describe his efforts
at compliance directly to the Court and, consequently, he failed to meet his burden of proof. Further, the evidence
demonstrates that Mr. Lynch continues to make some residential use of the RV ― while he is not physically present as
frequently (and may not be sleeping there), the RV remains on the Property, Mr. Lynch continues to keep animals on the
Property, he receives mail there, and his personal property is present. Thus, the contempt continues.
The Town is hereby authorized to enter the Property, upon 24 hour written notice to
Respondents, to remove the RV and any animals residing there. In doing so, the Town may
temporarily relocate any vehicles (junk or otherwise), trash, or debris, which interfere with the removal
of the RV and animals. Additionally, the Town shall use all reasonable care to avoid damage to
Respondents’ property, real and/or personal. The Town shall store the RV in a secure location, and
may charge a reasonable daily fee for such storage, until such time as is necessary for Respondents to
pay all outstanding fees, fines and penalties. If any personal property of Mr. Lynch remains in the RV
after it is impounded, he should be permitted to retrieve it at a reasonable time and in a reasonable
manner. The Town shall also provide safe and secure accommodations for any impounded animals
until Respondents pay all outstanding fees, fines and penalties associated with their impoundment, or
the Town commences appropriate proceedings under its Animal Control Ordinance to otherwise
address the status of the animals, whichever occurs first. 2
Lastly, the Town shall file its updated legal fees and costs, supported by affidavit, once the RV
and animals have been removed, as well as any known or anticipated costs of storing the RV and
caring for the animals. The Court will then consider whether those costs and fees are reasonable in
their totality, and whether a payment schedule is appropriate.

Electronically signed on June 17, 2025, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).

Joseph S. McLean
Superior Court Judge
Environmental Division

2 Notwithstanding this Decision on Contempt, nothing precludes the parties from negotiating a resolution of
the issues addressed herein, as well as other issues between them, that differs from the terms outlined above.