The Vermont Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling in *Tammy Kirshon v. Angela Abodeely-Mills and Jonathan Abodeely*, a complex family property dispute involving the interpretation of deeds from 1958 and 1977 that determine ownership of lakeside property in Orwell and Benson, Vermont.
The case, decided in January 2026 and designated as 2026 VT 2, centered on how to interpret two key property deeds that affected family members' ownership interests in a lakeside summer camp property. Justice Waples authored the opinion for a court that included Chief Justice Reiber and Justices Eaton, Cohen, and retired Justice Johnson, who was specially assigned to the case.
The dispute began with a 1958 quitclaim deed issued by Thelma L. Lillie, which conveyed the lakeside property to four grantees: Hazel R. Rathbun and her three sons, Leslie F. Soothcage and Ernest D. S[others]. The critical legal question was whether this 1958 deed created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship or a tenancy in common, a distinction that would significantly affect how ownership interests passed through the family over the decades.
The trial court in Rutland Superior Court's Civil Division had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the 1958 deed created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Under that interpretation, the court found that a subsequent 1977 deed severed only one share of the joint tenancy while leaving the rest intact. This analysis led the trial court to grant partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs and award them a 5/6 interest in the property.
The defendants, represented by Erin Miller Heins of Langrock Sperry & Wool in Burlington, appealed the decision. They argued that the 1958 deed actually conveyed a tenancy in common rather than a joint tenancy. Alternatively, they contended that even if the 1958 deed did create a joint tenancy, the 1977 deed severed the entire joint tenancy and converted the estate to a tenancy in common.
The distinction between these two types of property ownership is crucial in determining inheritance rights and ownership shares. In a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, when one owner dies, their interest automatically passes to the surviving joint tenants. In contrast, a tenancy in common allows each owner to pass their share to heirs through their estate, and owners may hold unequal shares.
The Vermont Supreme Court sided with the defendants' primary argument, holding that the 1958 deed created a tenancy in common rather than a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. This interpretation fundamentally changed the ownership structure and inheritance rights associated with the property.
Because the court ruled on the interpretation of the 1958 deed, it did not need to address the defendants' alternative argument about how the 1977 deed affected the property ownership structure. The court's decision to focus solely on the 1958 deed demonstrates the foundational importance of that original conveyance in determining all subsequent ownership rights.
The plaintiffs were represented by James T. Towne Jr. and Megan Bassler of The Towne Law Firm in Albany, New York, while the defendants' counsel was Erin Miller Heins of the Burlington law firm Langrock Sperry & Wool.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, meaning it will return to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the high court's interpretation of the 1958 deed. This reversal significantly alters the ownership interests in the family property and will likely require recalculation of each family member's share.
Property deed interpretation cases often turn on specific language used in the original conveyance documents and the legal presumptions that applied at the time of the transfer. Vermont property law, like that in most states, has specific requirements for creating joint tenancies, and courts must carefully analyze the deed language to determine the grantors' intent.
The case highlights the importance of precise legal language in property transfers and how disputes over decades-old deeds can create complex litigation involving multiple family members. Such disputes are not uncommon when family properties pass through multiple generations without clear documentation of ownership interests.
This decision will affect not only the immediate parties but potentially other family members who may have interests in the property. The remand to the trial court will allow for determination of the specific ownership percentages under a tenancy in common structure, which may differ significantly from the 5/6 interest previously awarded to the plaintiffs.
The opinion is subject to motions for reargument under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 and formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports, as is standard practice for Vermont Supreme Court decisions.