Vermont’s Lemon Law
Purchasing a motor vehicle is one of the largest and most important purchases consumers make. Most of us, however, have only a basic understanding of how a car operates or how to keep it in good working condition. When we purchase a vehicle (particularly a used vehicle) or bring it in for repair we find it necessary to put our trust in someone else. Trust that the car we are buying wasn’t damaged in a previous accident, has an accurate odometer reading, and trust that is in good operating condition. Trust that the repairs made were necessary in the first place, and that the repair will actually fix the problem.
There are some basic steps consumers can take to protect themselves when it comes to purchasing a vehicle; Read and understand the financing contract before signing it; read and understand any applicable warranty; know the seller and their reputation; take the vehicle to a mechanic of your own choosing for an inspection; thoroughly investigate the vehicle history. In Vermont there is no time period for returning a vehicle if you change your mind after you signed the purchase contract.
When it comes to car repairs, a consumer can also take a few proactive steps to protect themselves: know the mechanic and, perhaps most importantly, get the repair estimate in writing. There is no law in Vermont that requires a mechanic to stick to a quoted price if it’s not set out in a signed contract. If you are authorizing the garage to only make specific repairs, put it in writing. Ask about parts (will they be new or used) and labor costs- and have it put in writing.
Taking these few simple steps can often prevent problems down the road. But there may come a time when you are convinced that either a) the car you just purchased is a “lemon” or b) the mechanic is charging you for repairs that aren’t fixing the problem or don’t seem related to the problem in the first place. In such cases understanding your rights under Vermont’s “Lemon Laws” can help you save time and money.
“The New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Act”- aka Vermont’s “Lemon Law”
It’s important to know that the only “lemon law” on Vermont’s books applies to “new motor vehicles” which are defined as “a passenger motor vehicle which has been sold to a new motor vehicle dealer or motor vehicle lessor by a manufacturer and which has not been used for other than demonstration purposes and on which the original title has not been issued from the new motor vehicle dealer other than to a motor vehicle lessor.” The law generally does not cover consumers who purchase a used vehicle, whether from a licensed dealer or in a private transaction. (Alternative options available to buyers of used cars are discussed below.) Also excluded from the “lemon law” are tractors, motorized highway building equipment, road-making appliances, snowmobiles, motorcycles, mopeds, or the living portion of recreation vehicles, or trucks with a gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds.
Vermont’s lemon law requires that all new vehicles sold or leased in the state conform to applicable warranties. The obligation to make sure that the vehicle conforms to warranties rests on the manufacturer, not the dealer. If the consumer notifies the manufacturer or its agent (the dealership) of a nonconformity that substantially impairs the use, market value or safety of the vehicle then the manufacturer is legally obligated to make whatever repairs are necessary. (The manufacturer can delegate responsibility for the actual repairs to the dealer, but ultimately it is the manufacturer who pays for the cost of repairs.) The law further requires the manufacturer to give the consumer a written a) repair order b) summary of the consumer’s complaint and c) an itemized statement of all work done to repair the vehicle.
In many cases the first attempt to repair the vehicle will correct the defect. But what happens when multiple repairs are attempted and the defect is still not fixed? That’s where the “arbitration” part of Vermont’s “New Motor Vehicle Arbitration” law comes into play. If, after three attempts to repair the vehicle the problem is still not fixed or the vehicle (after one or more repair attempts) is out of service for 30 or more calendar days, then the consumer has the right to choose between a) the dispute mechanism set out in the manufacturer’s warranty (typically arbitration or mediation before a third party neutral chosen by the manufacturer) or b) the Vermont Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. The manufacturer has the responsibility of notifying the consumer of the right to choose, and to provide the forms necessary to start the process. There is no fee required for either dispute mechanism. The choice must be carefully made- choosing one form of resolving the matter precludes resorting to the other option later on.
In either case the arbitration/mediation must take place within 45 days of the manufacturer or VT Arbitration Board receiving notice of the consumer’s request for dispute resolution. During the 45 day period the manufacturer has the legal right to make a final attempt at repairing the vehicle attempt. If the repair is successful to the consumer’s satisfaction, the arbitration process is terminated “without prejudice”- the consumer can restart the arbitration process if the repair fails during the remaining life of the warranty.
It is important to keep in mind that you cannot stop making lease or financing payments because of the defect and unsuccessful attempts to repair it. In fact the law specifically bars a person who has stopped making payments on the vehicle from the remedy available under the statute. Stopping payment could feel like the right thing to do, but in the end it will undermine your legal protections.
The VT Arbitration Board consists of five members and two alternates. By law one member of the board must be a new car dealer in Vermont, one member (and one alternate) must be “knowledgeable in automobile mechanics” and the remaining three must be persons “having no direct involvement in the design, manufacture, distribution, sales or service of motor vehicles or their parts.” The Board conducts a hearing by taking testimony from both sides, along with any relevant documents and testimony from witnesses. The issue for the board to decide is whether the defect substantially impairs the use, market value or safety of the vehicle even after repairs are made by the manufacturer. The board must issue its decision within 30 days of the hearing. The board’s decision can be appealed to the Superior Court, but only for very narrowly defined reasons (including corruption/impartiality/misconduct by the board). Otherwise the decision of the board is binding on all parties involved, and a manufacturer’s failure to comply with a decision constitutes an unfair or deceptive act in violation of Vermont’s Consumer Protection law (which potentially increases penalties against the manufacturer.)
Two forms of relief are available to the consumer who prevails before the board. The consumer has a right to choose to either a) receive a replacement vehicle of a similar make, model and option accessory package or b) return the vehicle to the manufacturer for a refund of the full purchase price. A reasonable allowance for the consumer’s use of the vehicle prior to the first repair attempt can be deducted from the refund. (The statute sets out a formula for determining a “reasonable allowance.”) In the case of a leased vehicle, the manufacturer could be required to either replace the leased vehicle or refund all lease payments made minus a reasonable use allowance. The manufacturer is allowed to put the vehicle back on the market for sale, but must affix to a window a conspicuous notice that the vehicle was previously adjudicated as having a serious defect. Notice that the vehicle was adjudicated as having a serious defect must also appear on the vehicle’s title.
In the next article we’ll discuss a consumer’s rights when the car in question is a “used vehicle.”
Vermont’s newest business entity: The “B Corporation”
Opening a “food establishment” in Vermont
This is the first in a series of articles meant to explore some of the legal requirements for starting a food related business. These articles are meant to be introductory in nature. The food service industry is extensively regulated at both the state and federal levels; more detailed consultation with an attorney before engaging in any business activity is strongly recommended.
Ever stood in your garden in the cool of a summer evening and thought to yourself “If only I had a dollar for every one of those zucchinis!” New Englanders have a long tradition of producing their own food and turning their gardens into extra income. In a down economy it comes as no surprise to find that this tradition has found recent momentum; today’s news frequently cites the resurgence of farmer’s markets, CSAs (“community supported agriculture”), farm to table/school programs and “locally produced food.” Growing your own food is a great way to stretch a household budget and controlling the quality of the food your family eats. For more and more people it’s also becoming a way to generate extra income.
But legally selling food you produce to the public is not quite as simple as planting seeds in the ground or baking up a batch of cookies. Both the state and federal governments have detailed requirements that must be met before your first sale can happen. The scope of regulation is directly related to the product you are selling. Meat, dairy and seafood/fish products are extensively regulated. Raw vegetables are generally at the other end of the spectrum and are not quite as heavily regulated- provided you are not selling across state lines.
For purposes of this article we will focus primarily on regulations related to “prepared foods”- defined in Vermont as “food that is heated, cooled, altered in any way from its original state or mixed with other foods for human consumption.” This broad definition covers a wide range of food products that a home producer might wish to sell, from canned dilly beans and pickles to soups, stews and sandwiches to baked goods. If your business plan is to sell a product within this definition there will be some level of regulation you need to become familiar with.
We will also narrow our focus by concentrating on those types of “food establishments” that home based businesses will most likely engage in: home/commercial catering, push carts and catering trucks, fair stands and farmer’s markets. We will not focus on opening or operating a restaurant, inn or bed and breakfast.
Generally applicable regulations:
There are some state regulations that are generally applicable no matter what sort of food establishment you plan to operate:
Taxes
Regardless of which type of food establishment you are planning on operating you will probably have tax obligations. Responsibility for the taxes on income will depend on the business entity you choose to operate under. Operating as a sole proprietor means the income from your business will be taxed as your personal income; operating as a corporation could mean (depending on the type of corporation setup) that business income is taxed as corporate and not personal income.
Regardless of the business entity, however, the State of Vermont imposes a “meals and rooms tax” on any person engaged in “charging for a taxable meal.” Prior to beginning business an operator of a food establishment must register and obtain a meals and rooms tax license. It is unlawful to operate a food establishment without first having this license. The license is non-assignable and nontransferable and must be surrendered if the business is sold or transferred or if the person listed on the license ceases to do business.
For purposes of the types of “food establishments” we are discussing, a “taxable meal” is any nonprepackaged food or beverage furnished within the state for a charge, regardless of whether the food is intended to be consumed on or off the premises.
There are exemptions to the tax. Foods such as raw vegetables, candy, flour, nuts, coffee beans, etc. are not subject to the meals and rooms tax. A sandwich made from raw vegetables, however, is subject to the tax as are any heated food or beverage whether or not they are “prepackaged.” (So while the chili you plan to sell from a crockpot is not necessarily “prepackaged” it is still within the scope of the tax.) Foods and beverages sold by nonprofits as a fund raiser are exempted, as are foods sold on the premises of a school. But as a general rule, anybody planning to sell a food product should expect to pay meals and rooms tax to the State.
Under the law, responsibility for payment of the tax rests on the operator of the business. It is unlawful for the operator to “absorb” the tax or not add it to the item sale price. The operator is required to maintain records that show separately the charge for the item sold and the amount of tax paid. These records must be kept for three years and are open for inspection by the tax commissioner at any time. Returns showing the amount of gross sales and the amount of tax collected must be filed, along with the actual tax payment to the state either quarterly (if total annual sales are less than $500) or monthly.
Labeling and Packaging
Anybody selling a packaged product (including preserves, pickles, baked goods, etc.) must comply with Vermont’s “Packaging and Labeling Law” and regulations. Some products such as meat, seafood, poultry and dairy must also meet federal label and packaging requirements.
Vermont’s law imposes three primary requirements:
1. The label/package must clearly identify the product. In some cases a generic name can be used (ie. Bob’s “beef stew”) but the label cannot be misleading or deceptive;
2. Quantity- the label must specify accurately the weight/volume of the product in the package. Quantity cannot be qualified or exaggerated as in “one JUMBO pound” or “one FULL gallon.” A pound is a pound and a gallon is a gallon.
3. Declaration of Responsibility: this is the name and address of the person/company who manufactured the product. If you are selling something that was manufactured by someone else, it must say so on the label. State law mandates minimum letter and number size for this information.
Much has been made recently about nutritional labeling. This is a requirement imposed by federal law. An exemption for small businesses is contained within the law, and most food producers in Vermont will qualify for this exemption.
Federal law also requires that any product containing two or more ingredients list those ingredients. Small producers are not exempt from this requirement. An accurate listing of ingredients is particularly important when your product contains an ingredient known to cause allergic reactions (milk, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, tree nuts, etc.)
“Organic” is a term found on many Vermont produced products and it is a term that more and more consumers are looking for. Federal law allows for the use of the term organic provided the food and its primary ingredients, have been grown, produced and handled as required by the Act. In Vermont the Northeast Organic Farming Association (“NOFA”) promulgates rules and oversees the use of the term “organic” on food labels and packages. More information can be found at the NOFA website.
In the next article we will begin to consider the legal requirements for operating specific food establishments.
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Vermont law on First Amendment grounds
In a 6-3 decision issued June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Vermont law which restricted the ability of pharmaceutical companies to obtain information about what type of drugs doctors were prescribing to patients. The information is used by drug companies to more effectively market their products to doctors. Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. 564 U. S. ____ (2011) . At issue was the constitutionality of Vermont’s attempt to regulate the use of information “mined” from prescription records.
When prescriptions are filled at retail pharmacies certain information is generated: the patient’s name, the name of the prescribing doctor, the type/dosage/quantity of the drug prescribed and the date filled. These records are “mined” by data gathering companies who then sell the information to private companies, law enforcement agencies, research institutions and pharmaceutical companies. Federal and state laws require that information identifying a particular patient be “scrubbed” before the remaining information is sold.
Pharmaceutical companies are the largest users of data obtained from prescription records. The information allows pharmaceutical companies to target marketing and advertising materials to specific markets and geographical locations. It also allows the companies to identify prescribers by their prescribing habits, thereby allowing pharmaceutical sales reps, called “detailers”, to tailor their sales efforts to individual doctors. Being able to tailor a sales pitch to an individual doctor potentially allows the pharmaceutical company to influence which medicines are prescribed by the doctor, which in turn, has the potential to impact the overall cost of an individual’s health care.
Vermont attempted to address concerns raised by the “data mining” of prescription information in 2007 when the legislature passed the “Act Relating to Increasing Transparency of Prescription Drug Pricing and Information.” The law attempted to regulate the sale or use of “prescriber-identifiable” information for marketing or advertising purposes unless the prescriber (ie., the doctor writing the prescription) consented (also known as “opting in”) to use of the information. The overall intent of the law was to protect public health, protect prescriber privacy and reduce health costs.
In August, 2007, two data mining companies filed a lawsuit against the State of Vermont in federal district court. The data mining companies argued, among other things, that Vermont’s law impermissibly restricted their right of free speech. Vermont argued that the law regulated the data mining companies’ conduct, not speech. Vermont argued further that even if the law were viewed as a restriction of speech, the speech being regulated was of a commercial nature which is not fully protected under the Constitution.
The tests used to determine if a law violates the Constitution depends in large part upon the right that is being infringed. “Commercial speech” unlike “political speech” has been generally subjected to what is known as “intermediate scrutiny.” As a general rule, commercial speech can only be limited by the State if the limitation is in support of a substantial governmental interest, directly advances the governmental interest asserted and is not more extensive than necessary to serve the State’s interest. In this case, Vermont argued that the law met the test of constitutionality.
The federal district court agreed with Vermont. The Court found that while the law did indeed infringe upon the data mining companies’ free speech rights, the State’s interest in cost containment and public health were substantial. The Court concluded that the restrictions on the disclosure of prescription related data was “reasonable in proportion to the State’s interests.”
The data mining companies appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Arguments were heard in that Court in October, 2009. In November, 2010, a divided Court of Appeals overturned the district Court decision. That Court ruled that Vermont’s law was indeed an impermissible restriction on commercial speech. While Vermont arguably asserted substantial state interests, reasoned the 2nd circuit, the law did not directly advance those interests nor was it “narrowly tailored” to serve that interest.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard in April, and the Court issued a decision on June 23, 2011.
The Supreme Court held that Vermont’s statute violates the Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech. The court found that the law restricted the content of the speech, and restricted who could speak. The Court held that both those restrictions require what the Court called “heightened scrutiny”, rather than the intermediate scrutiny applied to ordinary commercial speech. Thus while the test was the same: that the state must demonstrate that “the statute directly advances a substantial governmental interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest, ” the Supreme Court held that the State had a greater burden to demonstrate its interest in restricting this type of commercial speech.
The Court found that the statute was not drawn to advance the claimed interests of the state. Vermont argued that the law protected physicians from disclosing their prescription decisions. But the law allows other entities to access that prescription information; it only restricted pharmaceutical companies from obtaining the information without prior doctor consent.
The state then claimed that the statute protected doctors from drug companies trying to persuade them to use their product. In a succinct rebuke to the state, the Supreme Court stated:
“Fear that speech might persuade provides no lawful basis for quieting it.”
Vermont Again, the court found that argument unpersuasive, stating:
“Vermont may be displeased that detailers with prescriber-indentifying information are effective in promoting brand name drugs, but the State may not burden protected expression in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.”
The dissent, in an opinion written by Justice Steven Breyer, argued that because this is commercial speech, “heightened scrutiny” is not warranted. Indeed, Justice Breyer argued that the Court had never before used a “heightened scrutiny” standard in reviewing a regulatory scheme that affects commercial speech.
He concluded with a separation of powers argument:
“Because the imposition of “heightened” scrutiny in such instances would significantly change the legislative/judicial balance, in a way that would significantly weaken the legislature’s authority to regulate commerce and industry, I would not apply a “heightened” First Amendment standard of review in this case.”
The two Justices appointed by President Obama split on this decision: Justice Sony Sotomayor joining the majority, with Justice Elena Kagan joining the dissent.
*Hat tip to Attorney Bob Brazil, who wrote most of the first part of this article for the radio show, “Law Matters” on Magic 97.7 prior to the Supreme Court’s decision on June 23rd
Called as a witness in court? Here are some tips to help you through the ordeal
Being called as a witness in court can be stressful. People who have seen courtroom dramas on television and in the movies fear that the opposing lawyer will trip them up, twist their words, or make them look foolish. In my 32 years experience I have found that does not happen to an honest witness who understands his or her job is just to answer the questions. If you remember that it is the attorney’s job to make sure all of the evidence is presented, and it is your job just to answer the questions, you will be fine.
Here are some tips that I give my clients and witnesses. These may help you if you are called as a witness:
Getting over the jitters: I will go over your testimony and possible cross examination questions. That should help you feel less nervous. Going over these instructions should also help. If you still feel uncomfortable, I recommend you go to court ahead of time, find out what courtroom you will be testifying in, and watch the proceedings. I can help you make arrangements to visit the court at an appropriate time if you wish.
Dress: It is important that you dress appropriately for court. The clothes you wear should indicate that you consider this an important matter, and that you have respect for the judicial system.
- Men should wear a shirt with a collar and slacks. No jeans or t-shirts. Women should wear dress shirts and slacks or skirt, or dresses. Avoid too much make-up.
- Everyone should be clean and neat. Please shampoo your hair the night before, or the morning of your testimony. Men should have their side-burns and mustaches trimmed, as well as a neat haircut. Both men and women should have their hair combed so it is out of their eyes.
- Do not wear sandals or loud shirts or loud blouses.
Courtroom conduct: When you are sitting in the courtroom, please conduct yourself with dignity. Never make faces or remarks when someone else is testifying. Do not roll your eyes, shake your head, put your head in your hands, or make any other gesture that is in response to a witness’s testimony. The judge and jury hate to see people in the court room do such things, and they frequently misinterpret your body-language.
When you sit in the witness box, sit in a relaxed position, but do not slouch. Put your hands in your lap; do not fold them across your chest.
Tips when testifying:
- TELL THE TRUTH: The one most completely devastating thing that can happen is for you to lie regarding some element of the case. You may be assured that the other side will investigate thoroughly and discover the untruth. It only hurts the case if you do not tell the truth
- BE BRIEF: Listen to each question carefully, answer it completely and honestly but do not over-answer it. That is, do not go elaborate unless some elaboration is necessary to clarify your answer, and do not go on to another topic.
- LISTEN TO THE QUESTION AND ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION. Do not second guess the attorney who is asking you the questions. Just remember that you have two strikes against you when you are on the witness stand: you are not familiar with the system, and you do not know the questions the attorney is going to ask, or why he or she is asking them–so second guessing is a loser’s game. Do not worry whether your answer is helping your case or whether you are being consistent; my job is to worry about that. All you have to do is tell the truth.
I have been practicing in trial courts since 1979. I have never seen an honest witness fooled by a lawyer.
- Do not ask the cross-examining lawyer a question. It shows belligerence. For example, a witness might ask, “Why is this relevant?” Do not ask such questions. It only gives the lawyer an opportunity to make a remark about your testimony and it irritates the judge and jury. Also, when you ask a question, it appears you are trying to avoid answering the lawyer’s question. There is only one exception: you must ask the attorney to repeat or rephrase the question if you do not hear the question, or do not understand the question.
- Be courteous and attentive to the opposing attorney. Under no circumstances should you get mad or lose your temper. I will be there to protect you if you are being mistreated. It helps to remember the opposing attorney is just doing his or her job.
- Do not look to me for help in answering the questions. I will object if you are asked an improper question.
- Do not testify to what someone has told you unless you are asked specifically about conversations with others.
- If you do not understand a question, say so. I have seen witnesses who are concerned that they look stupid, so they answer a question they do not understand. That could be a disaster
- If you do not hear a question, say so.
- If you do not know the answer, or you do not remember, say so. However, do not use, “I don’t remember” as an excuse not to answer. If you know the answer, answer the question.
- Do not guess at the answer to any question. Be especially careful where the question deals with dates, time, speed, or distance. You may estimate these if you are able but do not guess.
- Do not be afraid to admit that you have discussed your testimony with an attorney. Remember, that is the truth and you always tell the truth.
- Some people think they have to contradict the opposing attorney as much as possible. Others think they should agree with the opposing attorney as much as possible so that they appear unbiased. Do not try to be either too agreeable or too disagreeable when you are being cross-examined. JUST TELL THE TRUTH.
- Do not answer the question before the lawyer finishes asking. You might be tempted to hurry, because it is not pleasant to be cross-examined, and you want to get it over with. Take your time, and listen to the question carefully. Do not let the lawyer hurry you, either. Go at your own pace.
- Remember, I will have a chance to ask you questions again after the attorney cross-examines you. So, if there is anything that I feel has not been adequately explained in cross-examination, I will give you a chance to explain it.
- If you have been convicted of a crime, the other side may be able to bring it up during cross-examination. Let me know ahead of time, and I will file a motion to try to keep it out. Please do not surprise me on this.
Please remember: the other side may call you to testify before I do. They can. Do not worry about that; just keep in mind the instructions that I have given you.
Results on custody and visitation survey
>
In the first question, respondents are asked if a child should be able to choose which parent he or she lives with. Most said yes. In fact, the plurality said children should be able to choose at any age. Only a small fraction said the child should never have a say. Yet, in Vermont, the statutes do not allow children to express a preference for which parent they want to live with at any time. Indeed, one person told me privately that they felt a sibling had been damaged as a child because the sibling did not have a say as to which parent the child could live with. I have always thought it was best for children not to have a say as to where they live. In my experience, there is a danger to allowing children to express a preference because I have seen children who want to take care of a needy parent, and children who want to please an abusive parent. And even good parents can unconsciously manipulate a child. However, my opinion has changed somewhat based on this survey.
In the second question, respondents were asked how a child should be able to express a preference. The vast majority said that children should be able to talk to judges in chambers. That would not be allowed, unless the parties or their attorneys are present. It is a matter of due process for the parties to be able to at least have a representative in chambers. Parents have constitutional rights to the care and companionship of their children, and I do not believe allowing children to talk to a judge alone would pass constitutional muster. In any case, in my 32 years of experience in Vermont family courts, children have only testified once–not about their preferences, which is not allowed, but about some observations they had that no one else could testify to. So, this answer was markedly different than what happens in Vermont family courts.
The third question involved whether there should be a preference for sole custody with one parent, or joint custody. The vast majority said it should be in the judge’s total discretion, recognizing, I think, that each family is different. Vermont statutes do not allow any discretion when it comes to joint legal custody–the parties have to agree, or the court cannot order joint legal custody. In regard to physical custody, in Vermont, the statute outlines nine factors the courts must take into account when determining physical custody, and because those factors are quite general, judges have wide discretion. So the respondent’s answers matched what the statute contemplates. In my experience, judges used to routinely award custody to mother with every other weekend to father. That pattern has changed in recent years, with fathers being awarded custody more often than in the past, and with visitation much more frequent. However, in my experience, mothers still have an advantage, particularly when there are small children.
The fourth question asked whether parents should be able to request modification of custody and visitation as the children got older. The vast majority of respondents said yes, with a plurality indicating parents should go to mediation first. In Vermont, before there can be any modification of custody or visitation, a party must show there is a “substantial unanticipated change in circumstances”. In my experience, judges consider a child growing older not to be an unanticipated change in circumstances; thus custody and visitation cannot be changed. Indeed, in a recent case where a teenager had refused to stay with a parent for over a year, even though the order provided for 50/50 custody. The parent where the child lived filed a motion to modify, citing a substantial unanticipated change in circumstances. The judge refused to modify the order, because he found that teenagers often have a falling out with a parent, so he determined this was not an unanticipated change in circumstances!
Child Custody and visitation–what do you think?
>
Because of the changes that are happening in family courts, and because of the different approaches in Vermont and New Hampshire, I thought it would be interesting if we did a survey of the public to see what you think.
Here is the link to the survey. Particularly for those of you whose parents were divorced or separated during your childhood, or those who are now in a divorced or separated households with minor children, we hope this survey will give voice to your concerns and opinions.
Vermont Energy Efficiency Standards for residential construction–a potential trap for builders and a cause of action for injured homeowners
>
Fishy Law Facts
>
If you are found to be using the waders, you will be assessed 5 points on your hunting/fishing license, and $130.00 fine. Since you lose your license if you are assessed 10 points or more, this infraction is serious.
For more information, see the Vermont and Wildlife Department
Six Mistakes to avoid in settling accident claims
>
- Information about the accident, including all police and eyewitness reports, police photographs, photographs of the scene of the accident, and if necessary, accident reconstruction expert reports
- Medical reports concerning the injury caused by the accident, and any related previous injuries
- Summary of all medical and related health care expenses, whether or not paid for by your insurance or other third party provider
- Lost income information.
- Information about other expenses (mileage, nursing, housekeeping expenses)
- Expert reports on medical diagnosis and prognosis, lost earning capacity, vocational rehabilitation, permanent disability
- Information concerning loss of consortium claims by spouse and children
- Information inability or limited ability to do activities of daily living as a result of the accident