Rodgers v. Glover

Termont Superior Court
Filed 12/08/25
Orleans UUnit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Orleans Unit Case No. 25-CV-02499
247 Main Street
Newport VT 05855
802-334-3305
www.vermontjudiciary.org

John Rodgers et al v. Town of Glover

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Motion: 1)
Filer: Michael John Tarrant, II
Filed Date: June 11, 2025

In this action, plaintiffs John and Brenda Rodgers seek declaratory and injunctive
relief to quiet title to a disputed segment of Rodgers Road in the Town of Glover, and to
enjoin the Town from interfering with plaintiffs' rights to the disputed segment or
otherwise treating the disputed segment as a town highway. Pending before the court is
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the Town from accessing or
entering the disputed segment while the case is pending. The motion was heard by the
court over two days on October 9 and December 4, 2025. Because plaintiffs have not shown
that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, the
motion is denied.

Findings of Fact
The following findings of fact are made based on a preponderance of the evidence
introduced at the preliminary injunction hearing.
e Plaintiffs JJohn and Brenda Rodgers live at 582 Rodgers Road (the Rodgers farm) in
the Town of Glover.
e Rodgers Road begins as a Class III road at an intersection with Daniels Pond Road
(Town Highway 47), travels south to the Rodgers farm, when it changes to a Class
IV road and continues in a southwesterly direction. Rodgers Road remains a Class
IV road as it crosses the boundary of what the parties have described as Lot 23.
After crossing the Lot 23 boundary, the road continues for approximately 1,300 feet
and then makes a sharp westerly turn towards Andersonville Road (Town Highway
5) after which the road turns back into a Class III road before terminating at the
intersection with Andersonville Road. The dispute in this case concerns the Class IV
section from Rodgers farm to the boundary of Lot 23 (the disputed segment).

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 4
25-CV-02499 John Rodgers et al v. Town of Glover
• The Rodgers family has lived on the Rodgers farmstead since approximately 1838.
The residence on the farmstead predates the existence of Rodgers Road.
• John was born on the Rodgers farm and lived there until he was a teenager.

• John’s parents sold the Rodgers farm to John’s uncle Jim Rodgers in or about 1981.

• Jim was born on Rodgers Farm in 1947, lived there until he was 18 years old, served
briefly in the military, and then lived on the farm on and off until buying the
property from his brother (John’s father) in 1981.

• Jim and his wife Nancy lived on the Rodgers farm from 1981 until selling the
property to plaintiffs in 2019.

• Plaintiffs subsequently subdivided the property and conveyed a portion of the
property in Lot 23 to their son John Finley Rodgers and his wife Kristen.

• The Rodgers family has never excluded the public from accessing Rodgers Road
including the disputed segment. Although the Class IV section is generally not
passable during the winter, the public has been able to access the disputed segment
by foot or snowmobile.
• The Town does not plow Class IV roads and has not plowed the Class IV section of
Rodgers Road.
• The Town generally does not maintain Class IV roads except to maintain culverts
and water bars. The Town will do additional work on Class IV roads to keep them
passable when time and budgetary constraints allow.

• The Town has not regularly maintained the Class IV section of Rodgers Road but
has occasionally done work on the Class IV section, including the disputed segment,
between 1960 and present. In the 1960s, the Town performed a substantial project
to raise the roadbed and improve drainage on the disputed segment. The Rodgers
family has not objected to the Town working on the disputed segment before John’s
ownership of the Rodgers farm.

• The Rodgers farm is a working farm with an inn on the property. John currently
rents some of his land to other farmers, operates a cannabis and hemp operation,
and rents rooms in the inn as short-term (Airbnb) rentals.1
• Rodgers Road was formally so named for reference purposes, by agreement of Jim
Rodgers and the Town, when Vermont adopted the 911 emergency response system.

1 John currently serves as Lieutenant Governor of Vermont and previously served as a state

legislator. He testified, and the court agrees, that his public service is not relevant to any of the
factual and legal issues before the court.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 4
25-CV-02499 John Rodgers et al v. Town of Glover
• There is no evidence that the Town selectboard has passed an ordinance condemning
the disputed segment of Rodgers Road or otherwise expressly designated the
disputed segment as a town highway. The Town has appropriated funds for general
road maintenance, which have been used on Rodgers Road at the discretion of the
Town’s road foreman. On occasion, as described above, the Town’s road maintenance
resources have been used on the Class IV section of Rodgers Road including the
disputed segment.
• The parties disagree whether the disputed segment of Rodgers Road is a town
highway, or whether it is a private travelled way owned by plaintiffs and from which
plaintiffs can exclude others including the Town and its road maintenance
employees.
• John is concerned that the Town plans to upgrade the Class IV section of Rodgers
Road—including the disputed segment—to a Class III section and that the Town
will begin plowing the disputed segment during the winter. Such a change,
particularly if accompanied by an increase in traffic, would be a significant
departure from the historic use of Rodgers Road and would negatively impact
plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property, as the disputed segment runs within
approximately 20 feet of plaintiffs’ residence.
• Although John testified that possible upgrades to Rodgers Road have been discussed
at recent selectboard meetings, no evidence was presented that the Town has any
imminent plans to upgrade or perform any work on the disputed segment, apart
from the occasional maintenance typically afforded Class IV roads, as described
above.
• Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Town and its employees from
entering or accessing the disputed segment during the pendency of this litigation.
Conclusions of Law
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
Taylor v. Town of Cabot, 2017 VT 92, ¶ 19, 205 Vt. 586, 596, 178 A.3d 313 (quoting Winter
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). The movant bears the burden of
establishing that the relevant factors call for the imposition of a preliminary injunction. Id.
Those factors are: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the potential harm
to the other parties; (3) the likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest.”
Id. (citation omitted). Irreparable harm is “the single most important prerequisite for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction.” Daileader v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London
Syndicate 1861, 96 F.4th 351, 358 (2d Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted). “In the absence of a
showing of irreparable harm, a motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.”

Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 4
25-CV-02499 John Rodgers et al v. Town of Glover
Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotation
omitted).
Plaintiffs have not shown they will be irreparably harmed absent preliminary
injunctive relief. Although interference with property rights can constitute irreparable
harm, courts typically require a showing that the alleged interference will substantially
exclude the property owner from their own property or irreversibly impact the property’s
value in some fashion before a preliminary injunction will be granted on this basis. See, e.g.,
Gordon v. New England Cent. R.R., Inc., No. 2:17–CV–00154, 2017 WL 6327105, at *12 (D.
Vt. Dec. 8, 2017) (rejecting contention that “unauthorized interference with a real property
interest constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law” (quotations omitted)); Pion v.
Richardson, 25-CV-3957 (Vt. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2025) (finding irreparable harm, in part,
based on plaintiff being completely excluded from accessing his property by car or truck).
If plaintiffs ultimately prevail on the merits of their claim to quiet title to the
disputed segment, they may well be entitled to permanent injunctive relief. See, e.g., Evans
v. Cote, 2014 VT 104, ¶ 8, 197 Vt. 523, 528 (“A permanent injunction may be awarded in
response to a continuing trespass because damages are inadequate to address the wrong.”).
But at this stage, the record reflects that the Town has treated the disputed segment of
Rodgers Road as a Class IV road for decades, and that the Town has no imminent plans to
significantly alter its historic treatment of the disputed segment. Plaintiffs have not shown
they will be irreparably harmed by a continuation of the status quo until the case is
resolved on the merits.
The motion for a preliminary injunction is accordingly denied because plaintiffs have
not established irreparable harm. The court expresses no opinions on the other preliminary
injunction factors, including whether plaintiffs are ultimately likely to succeed on the
merits of their claim.
Order
The motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
The parties shall file a proposed pretrial and mediation schedule, or their respective
proposals, by December 22, 2025.

Electronically signed on: 12/8/2025 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

_______________________________________
Benjamin D. Battles
Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 4 of 4
25-CV-02499 John Rodgers et al v. Town of Glover