There are have always been three methods of taking title to real estate in Vermont, “tenants in common,” “tenancy by the entirety” and “joint tenancy with the right of survivorship.” Recently the Legislature passed legislation allowing “civil unions” which, essentially, created a fourth type of title, “partners to a civil union.”
Although the reaffirmation process can be somewhat technical, debtors and their secured creditors have much to gain by going through the process.
Sooner or later, it is bound to happen. Your company receives a notice that one of your vendors has filed for bankruptcy. This vendor owes you money. What do you do? First, don’t despair.
Facey Goss & McPhee recently responded on behalf of a client (the “Company”) to an inquiry by the State of Vermont Office of the Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, regarding allegations of discriminatory hiring practices. The recent inquiry involved allegations that the Company discriminated against an applicant during the hiring process based upon her gender.
In Vermont, hearings before a municipality’s planning commission, zoning board, or development review board historically have been relatively informal affairs. Whether participants appear before the panel to propose development, to respond to an alleged zoning violation, to object to a proposed project, etc., they frequently will appear without legal representation, and rarely will come armed with much more than a survey or building plans – sometimes only sketch drawings – of the property in question and/or of the work to be done. At the hearing, participants typically will present an unrehearsed narrative describing their reasons for being there. Otherwise, no formal presentation or exhibits are prepared for or submitted at the meeting.
Question Presented: Are there any laws allowing or regulating a non-profit organizations’ ability to organize, conduct, administer or otherwise facilitate gambling events or activities?
In 2008 the Vermont Legislature amended 18 V.S.A. Chapter 38 in an effort to better protect individuals from lead poisoning within the State. Owners of pre-1978 housing have a duty of reasonable care to prevent exposure to or creation of lead hazards.
Because of this ruling, Mr. Baechle can pursue his original assertion that the Town of Mendon failed to take efforts to notify him of the tax sale.