Shires Housing, Inc. v. Carolyn S. Brown and William A. Shepard, II, 172 A.3d 1215 (2017)

Citation: Shires Housing, Inc. v. Carolyn S. Brown and William A. Shepard, II, 172 A.3d 1215 (2017)
Parent Document: Shires Housing, Inc. v. Carolyn S. Brown and William A. Shepard, II, 172 A.3d 1215 (2017)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2017-07-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489424/shires-housing-inc-v-carolyn-s-... ↗

Full Text

1,964 chars

*1221¶ 15. When this Court interprets the language of an ambiguous statute, we look to a variety of sources to ascertain legislative intent. In cases where the Legislature has delegated power to an executive branch agency to implement a statute's overall objectives, those sources include the agency's own interpretation of the statute insofar as the interpretation is within the agency's area of expertise, legislative history, and other evidence of the legislative policy at which the contested provision was aimed. In re Hinsdale Farm, 2004 VT 72, ¶ 5, 177 Vt. 115, 858 A.2d 249. What is within an agency's area of expertise depends on the statutory scheme at issue; here the Department's areas of expertise are community block grants, housing programs, and local and regional planning and coordination. 3 V.S.A. § 2472. As such, this Court owes deference to the Department to the extent that its interpretation of 10 V.S.A. § 6237(a)(2)-(3) draws on its expertise with respect to housing programs and implementation of housing programs-the broad subject of the Mobile Home Parks Act-while grammatical construction of the statutory language is a matter traditionally reserved for the judicial branch. Cf. In re Smith, 169 Vt. at 169-70, 730 A.2d at 611 (acknowledging that agency is entitled to deference for matters within agency's area of expertise but that agency is not entitled to deference for question of burden of proof required because "court is the traditional and most appropriate forum to prescribe a standard"); Hansen v. C.W. Mears, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 776, 779 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) ("An agency's decisions are given some deference in its area of expertise and field of technical training, education and experience. However, when reviewing legal conclusions by an agency, this court need not defer to the agency's decision." (citations omitted)). With this in mind, we begin our analysis by looking to the Department's interpretation of the statute.

Other Sections in This Document (408)

Full Text