Shannon McLamb and Ann Madeloni v. Town of Shoreham

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 25-AP-275
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

JANUARY TERM, 2026

Shannon McLamb* and Ann Madeloni* } APPEALED FROM:
v. Town of Shoreham }
} Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division
} CASE NO. 24-CV-03962
Trial Judge: David A. Barra

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Taxpayers appeal the civil division’s order setting the listed value for taxpayers’ property
at $155,000. On appeal, taxpayers argue that the Town violated 32 V.S.A. § 3481 regarding a
reduction made to the property’s value due to a housing-subsidy covenant and that the Town
violated its discovery obligations. We affirm.

The court found the following. Taxpayers own a residential property on 1.5 acres in the
Town of Shoreham, Vermont, consisting of a dwelling and a separate, two-car garage. The
property is subject to a covenant that reduces its listed value to seventy percent of fair-market
value. In 2024, the Town performed a Town-wide reappraisal and determined that the fair-
market value of the property was $227,600. Due to the covenant restriction, the value was
reduced to $159,300. There are other properties in the Town subject to the same restriction and
all received the same treatment.

Taxpayers grieved the assessment to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA), which reduced
the listed value to $155,000 following inspection due to the condition of the property.

Taxpayers then appealed to the civil division. The court held a de novo hearing. The
Town presented testimony regarding how the property valuation was made. As part of the
testimony, the Town lister explained that the valuation was reduced by thirty percent because the

 Taxpayers’ brief provides a citation to the following case: State v. City of Burlington,
166 Vt. 274, 279 (1995). The Court is unable to identify any case that corresponds to this
citation. Taxpayers are reminded that by presenting a document to this Court, they are certifying
that the information is correct to the best of their knowledge. See V.R.C.P. 11(b)(2); V.R.A.P.
25(d)(2).
property had a housing-subsidy covenant. The Town lister also testified that other properties
with the same covenant were all reduced by thirty percent pursuant to a Town-wide policy.

Taxpayers entered photographic exhibits of the property’s water filter and the property in
general. Taxpayer McLamb testified and described issues with the property, claiming that the
Town’s description of the property was not accurate. Taxpayers did not offer their own estimate
of the property’s value.

The court found that the Town had established its assessed value and taxpayers had not
overcome the presumption of validity that is accorded to the Town’s assessment. Therefore, the
court set the listed value at $155,000. Taxpayers appeal.

To determine the proper valuation of a property, the court must first determine the fair-
market value and then the proper equalization rate. Jackson Gore Inn v. Town of Ludlow, 2020
VT 11, ¶ 4, 211 Vt. 498. The trial court conducts a de novo review of the property’s valuation
and on appeal this Court will uphold the trial court’s findings “unless they are clearly erroneous.”
Boivin v. Town of Addison, 2010 VT 67, ¶ 6, 188 Vt. 571 (mem.). In assessing the fair-market
value of property, the Town has the initial burden of producing evidence that the property was
appraised at fair-market value. Once the Town meets that burden, the taxpayer retains the
burden of persuasion to show that the valuation was arbitrary or unlawful. Sondergeld v. Town
of Hubbardton, 150 Vt. 565, 568 (1988).

On appeal, taxpayers first argue that the automatic thirty-percent reduction of fair-market
value violates the statute. The statute provides that owner-occupied housing subject to a
housing-subsidy covenant:

[S]hall be deemed to cause a material decrease in the value of the
owner-occupied housing, and the appraisal value means not less
than 60 and not more than 70 percent of what the fair market value
of the property would be if it were not subject to the housing
subsidy covenant.

32 V.S.A. § 3481(1)(C). Taxpayers assert that applying a flat reduction of thirty percent does
not meet the requirements of the statute and amounts to a “shortcut.” Taxpayers claim that the
correct valuation lies in the range of $136,560-$159,320.

Taxpayers have not shown that the Town violated the statute. The Town’s decision to
apply a reduction of thirty percent—thus, set the appraised value at seventy percent of the fair
market value—was consistent with the statute. Indeed, the listed value here of $155,000 was
within the range identified by taxpayers.

Taxpayers next argue that the court erred in granting the Town’s motion to strike
documents attached to taxpayers’ notice of appeal on the basis that the civil division proceeding
was de novo and therefore the materials were not relevant. Taxpayers opposed the motion. The
civil division granted the motion, indicating that taxpayers were not prejudiced because they
would have an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing. Taxpayer has not demonstrated
any error. This was a de novo proceeding, and as the trial court indicated, taxpayers had a full
opportunity at the evidentiary hearing to offer documents or other evidence that they deemed
relevant. See In re Milot, 151 Vt. 615, 617 (1989) (providing that proceeding under 32 V.S.A.
§ 4467 requires trial court “to try the dispute anew”); In re Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 245 (1978)

2
(explaining that “de novo hearing is one where the case is heard as though no action whatever
had been held prior thereto”).

In a related argument, taxpayers assert that the Town violated its discovery obligations,
and the court erred in denying taxpayers’ motion to compel. The court’s denial was based on the
fact that taxpayers had not complied with the discovery rule, which requires that before seeking a
motion to compel, the parties must discuss discovery issues and engage in a good-faith effort to
resolve the matter. See V.R.C.P. 26(h). The court’s denial was consistent with the rule and
within its discretion.

Taxpayers also make generalized claims that the Town failed to comply with the open-
meeting law, engaged in bad faith by making a recording available, and its officials breached
their statutory oaths of office. Taxpayers further state that the Town’s counsel violated Vermont
law in his treatment of taxpayers. Taxpayers have not provided any basis for these claims. The
civil division conducted a de novo hearing on this matter and taxpayers had a full opportunity to
present their evidence. See Connors v. Town of Dorset, 134 Vt. 233, 236 (1976) (explaining that
even if there was an error in proceedings before BCA, it was cured by de novo proceeding in
civil division). Taxpayers have not demonstrated any mistreatment or malintent on the part of
the Town or its attorney.

In sum, the evidence supports the court’s findings, which in turn support its conclusions
that the Town met its burden of showing that the property was appraised at fair-market value and
that taxpayers did not overcome the presumption of validity. Therefore, there are no grounds to
disturb its decision.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

3