Bogie v. Town of Barnet (1970)
Citation: 128 Vt. 280; 262 A.2d 484 (1970) · Court: Vermont Supreme Court · Decided: April 7, 1970
Vermont’s foundational pre-Tyler home-equity-protection decision. The Court held that a town conducting a tax sale stands in a relationship with fiduciary aspects toward its own delinquent taxpayer, and that where the town buys in the property and later resells it at a profit, the surplus belongs to the delinquent taxpayer, not the town.
Facts
The plaintiff’s home premises — a three-family dwelling, barn, and lot appraised at roughly $9,000 at the time of the last delinquency — were sold for delinquent taxes and bid in by the Town of Barnet for the amount due, $848.67. The town later realized value from the property well in excess of the taxes owed. The plaintiff (Bogie) sought the surplus, contending the town could not keep the difference between the tax debt and the value it captured.
Holding
The Court held that the relationship between the taxing authority and the taxpayer is not truly arms-length but has fiduciary aspects, and that the town could not retain the surplus above the delinquent taxes and lawful charges. The excess value belongs to the delinquent taxpayer.
The relationship of the taxing authority to the taxpayer stands, equitably, on a different footing and is not truly arms-length, but has fiduciary aspects… For the privilege of so proceeding, the town must suffer the restraints of fiduciary duty.
Reasoning
- Fiduciary character of the town’s role. Although 32 V.S.A. § 5259 permits a municipality to bid in at its own tax sale (excusing the usual incompatibility of a creditor buying at its own sale), that statutory permission does not put the town at arms-length with its own taxpayer, whose delinquency arises from the town’s own assessment and collection process. The town therefore bears fiduciary restraints and cannot profit from the taxpayer’s loss.
- Divisibility / surplus protection. The Court distinguished a true third-party purchase at the tax sale for taxes only (where no surplus then exists). Where the town itself captures excess value, that excess must be preserved for the taxpayer. The decision prompted later best practices on determining whether the premises are divisible so that less than the whole satisfies the debt, and on protecting excess proceeds for the taxpayer.
Practical impact
- For former owners: Bogie is Vermont’s longstanding rule that a town may not keep the surplus equity when it buys in and profits from a tax sale — a state-law antecedent to the constitutional rule later announced in tyler-v-hennepin-county. See surplus-funds.
- For investors / operators: A Vermont town’s purchase-and-resale at a profit is constrained by fiduciary duty; this shapes how municipal tax-sale surplus is handled and is the backdrop against which post-Tyler challenges (such as the Flynn v. Town of Barton litigation) are framed.
Good-law status
Still good law as a statement of Vermont’s fiduciary/surplus rule; reinforced
rather than displaced by tyler-v-hennepin-county (2023), which elevates the same
anti-windfall principle to a federal constitutional floor. Not overruled as of
last_verified 2026-06-02.
Why it matters
It establishes that a Vermont town owes fiduciary duties to its delinquent taxpayer and cannot retain tax-sale surplus — the doctrinal anchor for surplus and home-equity claims in Vermont, decades before Tyler.
Related authorities
- tyler-v-hennepin-county — federal constitutional rule against retaining surplus equity beyond the tax debt.
Applies in →
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.