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

735 chars

The trial court's circular reasoning in Garden Homes Management Corp. ignores our precedent. A court should look to the agency interpretation to determine the meaning of a statute only if the court first determines that the statute is ambiguous. See In re Peel Gallery of Fine Arts, 149 Vt. 348, 351, 543 A.2d 695, 697 (1988) ("[W]e only need to look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt." (quotation omitted)). An agency's incorrect interpretation of a statute does not establish that the statute is ambiguous. Delozier v. State, 160 Vt. 426, 434, 631 A.2d 228, 232 (1993) (stating that "to the extent that a rule conflicts with the statute, the rule cannot be sustained").

Other Sections in This Document (408)

Full Text