carr v richford

7ermont 	Superior 	Court
Filed 	o
Fran
VERMONT 	SUPERIOR 	COURT 	CIVIL 	DIVISION
Franklin 	Unit 	No. 	25-CV-02161
17 	Church 	Street
St. 	Albans, 	VT 	05478
802-524-7993
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Larry 	Carr 	v. 	Town 	of 	Richford
ENTRY 	REGARDING 	SUMMARY 	JUDGMENT 	MOTION
The 	matter is 	before 	the 	Court 	under 	Vermont 	Rule 	of Civil 	Procedure 	75, 	concerning 	an
administrative 	appeal 	of the 	Town 	of Richford's 	decision 	denying 	abatement 	of Appellant 	Larry
Carr's 	property 	taxes 	and 	charges 	for 	water 	and 	sewer. 	The 	Town 	of Richford 	has 	moved 	for
summary 	judgment 	on 	this 	matter.
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	Court 	grants 	the 	Town 	of Richford's 	request 	for 	summary
judgment.
I. 	Undisputed 	Material Facts
Plaintiff Larry 	Carr 	owns 	a 	property 	located 	at 	60 	Noyes 	Street, 	Richford, 	Vermont. 	On
November 	12, 	2024, 	Mr. 	Carr 	requested 	an 	abatement 	for 	his 	"taxes 	for 	water, 	sewer 	and
property" 	regarding 	60 	Noyes 	Street. 	See 	Exhibit 	A 	(filed 	4/14/2026). 	His 	request 	was 	based 	on
24 	V.S.A. 	§ 	1535(a)(3), 	which 	provides 	that 	"[t]he 	board 	may 	abate 	. 	. 	taxes 	or 	charges 	of
persons 	who 	are 	unable 	to 	pay 	their 	taxes 	or 	charges, 	interest, 	and 	collection 	fees." 	Mr. 	Carr's
request 	included 	abatement 	of charges 	dating 	back 	to 	2010.
Mr. 	Carr's 	request 	for 	abatement 	was 	based 	on 	his 	poor 	health 	and 	the 	decline 	in 	his
income 	that 	resulted 	from 	his 	health 	issues. 	He 	stated 	that 	his 	health 	issues 	included 	falls 	that
left 	long-term 	damage 	to 	his 	body, 	migraines, 	injuries 	and 	pain 	on 	the 	right 	side 	of his 	body, 	a
torn 	right 	shoulder 	that 	is 	out 	of its 	socket 	causing 	permanent 	damage 	to 	nerves 	and 	muscles, 	hip
concerns 	requiring 	injections, 	hammer 	toes, 	a 	left 	knee 	in 	need 	of replacement, 	broken 	ribs 	from
a 	recent 	fall, 	blood 	clots, 	breathing 	issues, 	a 	form 	of cancer, 	and 	a 	limited 	ability 	to 	be 	on 	his
feet. 	Id. 	These 	issues 	have 	prevented 	him 	from 	being 	able 	to 	work. 	Jd.
Mr. 	Carr 	testified 	to 	these 	health 	issues 	at 	a 	hearing 	before 	the 	Board 	on 	April 	8, 	2025.
He 	did 	not 	provide 	any 	documentation 	to 	support 	his 	health 	issues. 	He 	also 	stated 	he 	was
involved 	in 	bankruptcy 	proceedings 	for 	some 	of the 	years 	for 	which 	he 	requested 	abatement.
When 	the 	Board 	asked 	Mr. 	Carr 	when 	the 	health 	issues 	began, 	he 	stated 	they have 	been 	ongoing
for 	three 	years.
Mr. 	Carr 	did 	not 	raise 	any 	other 	specific 	issues 	in 	his 	letter 	to 	the 	Board 	or 	at 	the 	hearing.
The 	Board's 	decision 	considered 	Mr. 	Carr's 	health 	issues 	as 	testified 	and 	the 	fact 	that 	he
had 	filed 	for 	bankruptcy 	during 	some 	of the 	years 	in 	question. 	See 	Exhibit 	D 	(filed 	4/14/2026).
Entry 	Regarding 	Motion 	Page 	1 	of 4
25-CV-02161 	Larry 	Carr 	v. 	Town 	of Richford

7ermont 	Superior 	Court
Filed 	o
Fran
The 	Board 	made 	findings 	of fact 	and 	denied 	the 	request 	for two 	reasons: 	(1) 	the 	delinquencies
predated 	the 	onset 	of his 	health 	issues 	he 	claimed, 	and 	(2) 	the 	Board 	wanted 	to 	avoid 	setting 	a
precedent 	of forgiving 	taxes 	for 	residents 	dealing 	with 	health 	problems, 	given 	that 	many 	others
in 	the 	Town 	also 	face 	health 	issues. 	Jd.
II. 	Standard of 	Review
Summary 	judgment 	is 	proper 	"if the 	movant 	shows 	that 	there 	is 	no 	genuine 	dispute 	as 	to
any 	material 	fact 	and 	the 	movant 	is 	entitled 	to 	judgment 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law." 	V.R.C.P. 	56(a);
Gallipo 	v. 	City 	ofRutland, 	163 	Vt. 	83, 	86 	(1994).
A 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment 	must 	be 	accompanied 	by 	a 	statement 	listing 	the
undisputed 	material 	facts 	that 	support 	the 	motion. 	The 	non-moving 	party 	then 	may 	dispute 	those
facts 	and 	additionally 	"file 	a 	separate 	and 	concise 	statement 	of additional 	material 	facts."
V.R.C.P. 	56(c)(2). 	The 	moving 	party 	is 	then 	required 	to 	respond 	to 	the 	additional 	statement 	of
facts 	to 	explain 	why 	they 	are 	not 	disputed 	or 	not 	material.
Parties 	must 	support 	all 	facts 	presented 	by 	admissible 	evidence, 	and 	the 	Court 	will
disregard 	conclusory 	facts 	and 	conclusions 	of 	law. 	H 	& 	E 	Equipment Services, 	Inc. 	v. 	Cassani
Electric, 	Inc., 	2017 	VT 	17, 	§ 	20, 	204 	Vt. 	559. 	In 	deciding 	a 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment, 	the
Court 	will 	give 	the 	non-moving 	party 	the 	benefit 	of all 	reasonable 	doubts 	and 	inferences.
Robertson 	v. 	Mylan 	Labs., 	Inc., 	2004 	VT 	15, 	J 	15, 	176 	Vt. 	356.
III. 	Conclusions 	of Law
This 	matter 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	an 	appeal 	under 	Vermont 	Rule 	of Civil 	Procedure 	75.
"Rule 	75 	places 	the 	[superior] 	court 	in 	the 	position 	of an 	appellate 	court 	in 	reviewing
administrative 	agency 	decisions." 	Guntlow 	v. 	Bd. 	ofAbatement, 	Town 	ofPownal, 	2014 	VT 	118,
1 	17, 	198 	Vt. 	174 	(quotations 	omitted) 	(quoting 	Garbitelli 	v. 	Town 	ofBrookfield, 	2011 	VT 	122, 	1
7,191 	Vt. 	76). 	This 	Court's 	review 	is 	narrow 	"a 	tax-abatement 	decision 	is 	entirely
discretionary" 	and 	as 	such 	the 	Court 	here 	only 	"reviews 	it 	for 	abuse 	of discretion." 	/d. 	at 	J 	18
(citing 	Garbitelli, 	2011 	VT 	122,47). 	The 	Court 	looks 	to 	the 	administrative 	record 	"to 	determine
whether 	there 	was 	any 	competent 	evidence 	to 	support 	the 	[agency's] 	findings." 	/d. 	(quoting
Roberts 	v. 	Univ. 	of 	Vt., 	2013 	VT 	30, 	J 	14, 	193 	Vt. 	529). 	However, 	on 	any 	question 	of 	law, 	the
court 	will 	exercise 	its 	independent judgment. 	Jd.
In 	plain 	language, 	this 	means 	that 	this 	Court 	is 	not 	allowed 	to 	consider 	facts 	regarding
Mr. 	Carr's 	abatement 	request 	if those 	facts 	are 	being 	raised 	during 	this 	appeal 	for 	the 	first 	time.
It 	can 	only 	consider 	the 	record 	Mr. 	Carr 	made 	before 	the 	Board 	-
the 	contents 	of his 	abatement
request, 	the 	evidence 	he 	presented 	at 	the 	hearing, 	and 	the 	Board's 	decision. 	This 	Court 	is 	not
permitted 	to 	consider 	matters 	that 	were 	not 	raised 	before 	the 	Board.
Mr. 	Carr 	presents 	in 	this 	case 	several 	matters 	not 	raised 	in 	front 	of the 	Board 	and 	not
found 	in 	the 	administrative 	record 	below. 	First, 	Mr. 	Carr 	presents 	a 	question 	regarding 	the
Town's 	compliance 	with 	32 	V.S.A. 	§ 	5252 	in 	relation 	to 	"a 	threatened 	tax 	sale 	proceeding." 	See
Plaintiffs 	Reply 	to 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment 	(filed 	5/18/2026). 	However, 	this 	is 	not 	the
Entry 	Regarding 	Motion 	Page 	2 	of 4
25-CV-02161 	Larry 	Carr 	v. 	Town 	of Richford

7ermont 	Superior 	Court
Filed 	o
Fran
proceeding 	to 	raise 	the 	issue; 	it 	should 	be 	raised 	if the 	Town 	moves 	forward 	with 	the 	alleged tax-
sale 	proceeding.
Mr. 	Carr 	raises 	other 	factual 	arguments 	not 	in 	the 	administrative 	record 	below, 	and 	the
Court 	does 	not 	consider 	those 	facts 	because 	they 	are 	not 	properly 	before 	this 	Court 	on 	appeal.
For 	example, 	Mr. 	Carr 	disputes 	the 	amount 	the 	Town 	has 	charged 	him. 	He 	asserts 	this 	matter
was 	raised 	before 	the 	Board, 	because 	his 	letter 	states 	that 	he 	is 	asking 	for 	"an 	abatement 	on 	my
taxes 	for 	water, 	sewer 	and 	property 	on 	60 	Noyes 	Street, 	Richford." 	Ex. 	A. 	This 	generalized
request 	for 	abatement 	of all 	charges 	and 	taxes 	is 	not 	enough 	to 	put 	the 	Town 	on 	notice 	of the
specific 	requests. 	And 	the 	issue 	was 	not 	raised 	at 	all 	during 	the 	hearing. 	The 	only 	issue 	properly
raised 	in 	the 	abatement 	request 	and 	discussed 	at 	the 	hearing 	were 	health issues. 	The 	Court 	is
sorry 	to 	hear 	that 	Mr. 	Carr's 	health 	issues 	have 	further 	deteriorated 	since 	his 	initial 	appeal 	was
filed 	and 	wishes 	him 	a 	speedy 	recovery. 	Any 	new 	medical 	issues 	would 	have 	to 	first 	be
considered 	by 	the 	Board, 	and 	can 	only 	be 	decided 	by 	this 	Court 	if the 	Board 	denies 	a 	future
request 	for 	abatement.
In 	addition, 	while 	Mr. 	Carr 	argues 	in 	his 	opposition 	that 	the 	Board's 	decision did 	not
comply 	with 	the 	requirements 	of 	24 	V.S.A. 	§ 	1535(c) 	to 	"state 	in 	detail 	in 	writing 	the 	reasons 	for
its 	decisions," 	this 	issue 	was 	also 	not 	properly 	raised 	in 	Mr. 	Carr's 	notice 	of appeal. 	Mr. 	Carr
raised 	it 	for 	the 	first 	time 	in 	his 	opposition 	to 	the 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment.
Even 	if the 	Court 	were 	to 	disregard 	this 	procedural 	problem, 	Mr. 	Carr's 	argument 	does
not 	succeed 	as 	a 	legal 	matter. 	The 	Vermont 	Supreme 	Court 	requires 	boards 	of abatement 	to 	meet
the 	following 	standard:
A 	board 	of abatement's 	decision 	must 	provide 	sufficient 	explanation 	to 	"indicat[e] 	to 	the
parties, 	and 	to 	an 	appellate court, 	what 	was decided 	and 	upon 	what 	considerations."
Punderson, 	136 	Vt. 	at 	225, 	388 	A.2d 	at 	376 	(citations 	omitted). 	The 	writing 	need 	not 	be
lengthy, 	exhaustive, 	or 	legalistic, 	and 	need 	not 	satisfy 	the 	standards 	we 	would 	apply 	to 	a
trial 	court's 	findings. 	But 	it 	must 	address 	the 	arguments 	raised 	by 	the 	applicant. 	See
Harris, 	158 	Vt. 	at 	481, 	613 	A.2d 	at 	699. 	The 	more 	detailed 	and 	clear 	a 	taxpayer's 	own
presentation, 	the 	greater 	the 	board's 	duty 	to 	respond in 	kind. 	See 	id. 	at 	482 	n. 	3, 	613 	A.2d
at 	699 	n. 	3."
Guntlow, 	2014 	VT 	118, 	§ 	32.
Here, 	the 	Board 	made 	findings 	of fact 	that 	detailed 	Mr. 	Carr's 	health 	issues, 	when 	they
began, 	and 	his 	request. 	It 	then 	explained 	its 	legal 	conclusions 	for 	why 	it 	was 	not 	granting 	the
abatement. 	The 	legal 	conclusions 	explained 	why 	it 	specifically 	denied 	Mr. 	Carr's 	request 	and
then 	a 	policy 	matter 	that 	it 	considered 	more 	broadly. 	Under 	Guntlow, 	this 	is 	enough.
Turning 	now 	to 	the 	issue 	raised 	by 	Mr. 	Carr 	in 	his 	complaint 	and 	notice 	of appeal, 	the
Court, 	based 	on 	the 	administrative 	record, 	finds 	no 	abuse 	of discretion 	in 	the 	denial 	of Mr. 	Carr's
abatement 	request. 	The 	findings 	considered 	the 	evidence 	Mr. 	Carr 	presented 	about 	his 	health
issues 	and 	denied 	his 	request 	on 	two 	bases: 	(1) 	that 	his 	health 	issues 	did 	not 	date 	back 	to 	the 	time
Entry 	Regarding 	Motion 	Page 	3 	of 4
25-CV-02161 	Larry 	Carr 	v. 	Town 	of Richford

7ermont 	Superior Court
Filed 	09/18/26
Franklin 	Unit
when 	his payments 	became 	delinquent 	and 	(2) 	the 	board 	did 	not 	want 	to 	start 	a 	precedent 	of
abating 	taxes 	for 	all 	residents 	with 	health issues.
Mr. 	Carr's 	only 	detailed 	reason 	for 	his 	abatement 	request 	was 	his 	health, 	which 	had
declined 	in 	the 	last 	three 	years. 	By 	contrast, 	his 	tax 	delinquencies 	were 	more 	than ten 	years 	old.
As 	such, 	the 	Board 	did 	not 	find 	it 	credible 	that 	all 	his 	prior 	delinquencies 	were 	due 	to 	his 	health
issues. 	This 	is 	not 	an 	abuse 	of discretion.
Second, 	considering 	the 	Town's 	funding 	sources, 	the 	Board 	did 	not 	want 	to 	set 	a
precedent 	and, 	in 	turn, 	reduce 	town 	funding 	by 	abating 	taxes 	and 	fees 	solely 	on 	the 	basis 	that 	an
individual 	had 	health 	issues. 	Each 	of these 	provides 	a 	rational 	basis 	for 	the 	Board's 	decision.
While 	the 	Board 	did 	not 	specifically 	include 	an 	explanation 	regarding 	the 	bankruptcy 	in
its 	reasoning, 	it 	did 	include 	it 	in 	the 	findings 	of fact. 	Given 	the 	highly 	deferential 	standard 	and
that 	the 	evidence 	presented 	by 	Mr. 	Carr 	was 	only 	testimony 	with 	no 	documentation, 	the 	Court
does 	not 	find 	that 	the 	Board 	abused 	its 	discretion for 	failing 	to 	specifically 	consider 	the
bankruptcy 	in 	its 	reasoning. 	See 	Guntlow, 	2014 	VT 	118, 	Jf 	27-28.
ORDER
The 	Court 	grants 	summary 	judgment 	for 	the 	Town 	of Richford. 	The 	Court 	will 	issue 	a
separate 	judgment 	order.
Electronically 	signed 	on 	September 	18, 	2026, 	pursuant 	to 	V.R.E.F. 	9(d).
Navah 	C. 	Spefo
Superior 	Court 	Judge
Entry 	Regarding 	Motion 	Page 	4 	of 4
25-CV-02161 	Larry 	Carr 	v. 	Town 	of Richford