Vermont Easements, Landlocked Property and Eminent Domain (2026)

In Vermont, a prescriptive easement generally takes 15 years of use that is open, notorious, hostile and continuous, with acquiescence by the owner. The Vermont Supreme Court set out those elements in Community Feed Store, Inc. v. Northeastern Culvert Corp. (1989), and the period matches the 15-year limit on actions to recover land in 12 V.S.A. § 501. On the eminent domain side, 12 V.S.A. § 1040 bars any governmental or private entity from taking private property primarily for economic development, unless the taking is under the state's urban renewal chapter, and the section does not affect condemnation for transportation, utility, public building and park, or water and waste projects.

This page covers both halves of Vermont law: easements between private landowners first, then the government's power to take private property. For other states, see our guide to easement laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-19. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Vermont statutes and Vermont Supreme Court decisions on private easements (prescription, ways of necessity, private road maintenance, release and the marketable record title law) and on the condemnation of private property, with detail on state highway takings under 19 V.S.A. chapter 5, utility takings under 30 V.S.A. chapter 3, and town and city takings under 24 V.S.A. chapter 77 and 19 V.S.A. chapter 7. It does not cover adverse possession of title (see Vermont squatters rights), homeowners association covenants, zoning or regulatory takings, condemnation under other special statutes, federal condemnation, or local ordinances.

Easements in Vermont: The Basics

An easement is a right to use someone else's land for a limited purpose, such as a driveway or a utility line. In Vermont, an easement can be created by a written grant, can be implied from an earlier use or arise by necessity when land is divided, or can be acquired by long use (prescription). Disputes over shared driveways and private rights-of-way also come up under a specific maintenance statute.

Written easements and recording

Vermont treats an easement as an interest in land, so the writing rules for land apply. 27 V.S.A. § 302 provides:

"Estates or interests in lands, created or conveyed without an instrument in writing shall have the effect of estates at will only. An estate or interest in lands shall not be assigned, granted, or surrendered unless by operation of law or by a writing signed by the grantor or his or her attorney."

Deeds and other conveyances of an interest in land "shall be signed by the party granting the same and acknowledged by the grantor before a notary public and recorded at length in the clerk's office of the town in which the lands lie" (27 V.S.A. § 341(a)). Recorded easements are found in the town clerk's land records; our guide to Vermont property records explains how to search them.

How Long Does a Prescriptive Easement Take in Vermont?

Generally fifteen years. The period and the elements come from Vermont Supreme Court decisions, and the 15 years matches the statute for recovering land. 12 V.S.A. § 501 provides that, "Except as otherwise provided in 32 V.S.A. § 5263, an action for the recovery of lands, or the possession thereof, shall not be maintained, unless commenced within 15 years after the cause of action first accrues to the plaintiff or those under whom he or she claims." The same chapter provides that "Nothing contained in this chapter shall extend to lands given, granted, sequestered, or appropriated to a public, pious, or charitable use, or to lands belonging to the State" (12 V.S.A. § 462).

The Vermont Supreme Court stated the elements in Community Feed Store, Inc. v. Northeastern Culvert Corp., 151 Vt. 152 (1989):

"The elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement and adverse possession are essentially the same under Vermont law: an adverse use or possession which is open, notorious, hostile and continuous for a period of fifteen years, and acquiescence in the use or possession by the person against whom the claim is asserted."

The same decision addressed two recurring questions:

• Presumption of adversity. "The general rule is that open and notorious use will be presumed to be adverse." The court described the presumption that public use is by permission as "an exception to the general rule, to be used only in appropriate circumstances," and held it did not apply to the use in that case, which was not "the kind of generalized public use" that exception covers.
• How precisely the route must be proved. The court held that "the extent of the user must be proved not with absolute precision, but only as to the general outlines consistent with the pattern of use throughout the prescriptive period," and that a claimant who proves "those general outlines with reasonable certainty" has met its burden on that issue.

Because the court treats the elements as essentially the same, the 15-year period also applies to adverse possession of title; see Vermont squatters rights and adverse possession for that side of the rule.

Can an owner stop a prescriptive easement from forming?

Vermont's limitations chapter (12 V.S.A. chapter 23) and its conveyancing chapter (27 V.S.A. chapter 5) contain no provision that lets an owner block prescription by posting a sign or recording a notice, a mechanism some other states have. One statute protects owners who open land to the public: under 12 V.S.A. § 5794(a)(3), the fact that an owner "has made land available without consideration for recreational uses" shall not be construed to "support or create any claim or right of eminent domain, adverse possession, or other prescriptive right or easement." Under Community Feed Store, the claim depends on the use being hostile and continuous for the full fifteen years, with the owner's acquiescence, so disputes usually turn on those elements and on whether the presumption of adversity applies.

What If My Land Is Landlocked in Vermont?

Vermont has a common-law way of necessity and a public highway petition process. The highway chapter (19 V.S.A. chapter 7) and the private road chapter (19 V.S.A. chapter 27) contain no procedure that lets a landlocked owner condemn a private road across a neighbor's land.

The common-law way of necessity

In Traders, Inc. v. Bartholomew, 142 Vt. 486 (1983), the Vermont Supreme Court restated the rule:

"This Court has long since ruled that when, as a result of the division and sale of commonly owned land, one parcel is left entirely without access to a public road, the grantee of the landlocked parcel is entitled to a way of necessity over the remaining lands of the common grantor or his successors in title."

The court contrasted this with an easement implied from prior use: for a way of necessity, "All that is required for the latter is the division of commonly owned land resulting in the creation of a landlocked parcel." The way runs over the remaining lands of the common grantor or the grantor's successors in title. An unrecorded way of necessity that is not visibly used can be extinguished under the marketable record title law (see "How Does an Easement End in Vermont?" below).

Easements implied from prior use

In Tallarico v. Brett, 137 Vt. 52 (1979), the Vermont Supreme Court summarized its rule from Read v. Webster (1921): when an owner permanently alters two parts of the land, burdening one for the benefit of the other, and conveys one part without expressly granting or reserving the benefit, the law implies the grant or reservation if (1) the benefit and burden "exist and are obvious at the time of the conveyance"; (2) the common owner used the premises in their altered condition long enough to show the change was intended to be permanent; and (3) the easement is "a strict necessity in that there is no other reasonable mode of enjoying the dominant estate." The court added that "mere convenience or usefulness is not sufficient to establish an easement by implication." Under Traders, failure to prove the common owner's prior use "would be fatal to a finding of an easement by implication" but "is totally irrelevant to a finding of a way of necessity."

Petitioning the town for a highway

A town highway is a separate route to access. Under 19 V.S.A. § 708(a), "Persons who are either voters or landowners, and whose number is at least five percent of the voters, in a town, desiring to have a highway laid out, altered, reclassified, or discontinued, may apply by petition in writing to the selectboard for that purpose." If the selectboard does not lay out the highway, voters or landowners numbering at least five percent of the town's voters may petition the Superior Court (19 V.S.A. § 750), which, unless cause is shown to the contrary, appoints three disinterested landowners as commissioners (§ 751). The commissioners may make a layout conditional on payment by petitioners who will be especially benefited, "towards the expense of laying out and building the highway" (§ 755).

Old town roads matter for access too. Vermont required that "All class 1, 2, 3, and 4 town highways and trails shall appear on the town highway maps by July 1, 2015," and on or before July 1, 2010 a town's legislative body could vote to discontinue town highways "that are not otherwise clearly observable by physical evidence of their use as a highway or trail and that are not included as such on the sworn certificate" filed with the town clerk (19 V.S.A. § 305(c), (h)). For highways discontinued under that section and not designated as trails, "title to the rights-of-way shall belong to the owners of the abutting lands" (§ 305(j)).

Section 302 defines "unidentified corridors" as town highways that were legally laid out but did not appear on the town highway map as of July 1, 2010, were not clearly observable by physical evidence of their use as a highway or trail, and were not legal trails (19 V.S.A. § 302(a)(6)(A)). A town could reclassify an unidentified corridor as a highway or trail on or by July 1, 2015 (§ 302(a)(7)). "After July 1, 2015, an unidentified corridor shall be discontinued, and the right-of-way shall belong to the owner of the adjoining land" (§ 302(a)(6)(G)).

Who Maintains a Shared Driveway or Private Road?

Vermont answers this by statute. 19 V.S.A. § 2702 provides:

"In the absence of an express agreement or requirement governing maintenance of a private road, when more than one person enjoys a common benefit from a private road each person shall contribute rateably to the cost of maintaining the private road and shall have the right to bring a civil action to enforce the requirement of this section."

The rule follows a long-standing equitable principle the Vermont Supreme Court recognized in Hubbard v. Bolieau, 144 Vt. 373 (1984): "when several persons enjoy a common benefit, all must contribute rateably to the discharge of the burdens incident to the existence of the benefit." The statutory rule applies only in the absence of an express agreement or requirement governing maintenance.

How Does an Easement End in Vermont?

Two statutes and one leading case bear directly on how a private easement ends or survives:

• Release in writing. Because an interest in land "shall not be assigned, granted, or surrendered unless by operation of law or by a writing signed by the grantor or his or her attorney" (27 V.S.A. § 302), giving up an easement by agreement takes a signed writing, which is then recorded in the town land records under 27 V.S.A. § 341(a). For how a deed is prepared and recorded in Vermont, see our guide to Vermont quitclaim deeds.

• The marketable record title law. A person who holds an unbroken chain of record title to an interest in real estate for 40 years has a marketable record title (27 V.S.A. § 601(a)), free of interests that depend on events before that 40-year period, unless the holder records a sworn notice of claim within the period (§ 603); a recorded notice remains effective for 40 years (§ 605(c)). Section 604 lists interests that are not lost for failure to file, and the law does not affect interests held by the United States, the State or a political subdivision (§ 604(b)). The list includes "(6) any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, ... the existence of which is clearly observable by physical evidences of its use" and "(7) any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, or any rights appurtenant thereto granted, excepted, or reserved by a recorded instrument creating the easement or interest." An easement by necessity can fall outside both: in Gray v. Treder, 2018 VT 137, the Vermont Supreme Court held that "An implied easement by necessity, the existence of which is not clearly observable by physical evidence of its use, is not among those interests excepted from extinguishment," and that even if an easement by necessity arose when the land was divided in 1948, the Act had extinguished it because it remained unrecorded.

• Abandonment. In Lague, Inc. v. Royea, 152 Vt. 499 (1989), the Vermont Supreme Court said that "an easement acquired by deed cannot be extinguished by nonuse alone, no matter how long it continues." Abandonment may be established only by "acts by the owner of the dominant tenement conclusively and unequivocally manifesting either a present intent to relinquish the easement or a purpose inconsistent with its future existence," a burden the court called "a heavy one," and the court held that reliance by the servient owner is not required.

Eminent Domain in Vermont

Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public use. For federal law and the rules in other states, see our guide to eminent domain laws by state.

The Vermont Constitution

Two provisions of Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution govern takings. Article 2 states:

"That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it, nevertheless, whenever any person's property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money."

Article 9 adds that "no part of any person's property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person's own consent, or that of the Representative Body." Article 2 uses the words "an equivalent in money" rather than "just compensation," and it speaks of property "taken."

Can Vermont take property for economic development?

Not primarily for that purpose. 12 V.S.A. § 1040, added by 2005, No. 111 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, provides:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no governmental or private entity may take private property through the use of eminent domain if the taking is primarily for purposes of economic development, unless the property is taken pursuant to 24 V.S.A. chapter 85 (urban renewal)."

The ban reaches private entities as well as government, and it turns on the primary purpose of the taking. Urban renewal takings under 24 V.S.A. chapter 85 are expressly excepted. Subsection (b) adds that the section "shall not affect the authority of an entity authorized by law to use eminent domain for" transportation projects (including highways, airports and railroads), public utilities, public property, buildings, hospitals and parks, or water, wastewater, stormwater, flood control, drainage or waste disposal projects (12 V.S.A. § 1040(b)). The public utilities named include entities engaged in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electric, gas, sewer and sewage treatment, or communication services.

At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), that the economic-development takings in that case satisfied the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement, while emphasizing that "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." Section 1040 is one of those state-level restrictions.

Utilities and pipelines

Utilities regulated under Title 30 condemn property or easements through a petition to the Commission. Before condemnation is allowed, the Commission must find, among other things, "that the condemnation of property or right is necessary in order that the petitioner may render adequate service to the public in the conduct of the business which it is authorized to conduct" and "that the condemnation of the property or right will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region and scenic preservation" (30 V.S.A. § 112).

Compensation in a utility taking "shall be based upon the value of the property on the day the petition is presented to the Commission, and shall include as separate elements the value of the property taken, impairment to the value of remaining property or rights of the owner, and consequential damages, including the damage to the owner's business" (30 V.S.A. § 112(b)). A party dissatisfied with the compensation the Commission assesses may, "within 30 days after the order of the Commission is made," appeal to the Superior Court of the county where the property lies to have compensation reassessed, and either party may demand a jury trial (30 V.S.A. § 112(b)). On payment or deposit of the award with interest, the utility becomes the owner; while a compensation appeal is pending, its ownership is "an equitable title only with right of possession" (§ 115). These sections expressly apply to the condemnation of rights "to construct and maintain pipe lines, conduits, lines of poles, towers, or wires" (§ 116). Property or easements condemned under this chapter but not applied and used remain "subject to condemnation under this chapter for a public use by another public service corporation, other than a railroad" (30 V.S.A. § 117).

The Highway Condemnation Process

Title 19, chapter 5 governs condemnation by the state transportation agency (called "the Agency" in the statute) for state highway projects. Takings by towns and cities follow different statutes, summarized after this section.

Before the taking

• Notice and hearing. Before starting proceedings the Agency must hold a public hearing, and not less than 30 days before it must publish the official notice in a newspaper and mail a copy to all known owners whose property may be taken (19 V.S.A. § 502(c)).
• Appraisal. The Agency must have the property appraised before negotiating unless the owner offers to donate it or the Agency determines an appraisal is unnecessary because the valuation question is uncomplicated and the value low, in which case it prepares a waiver valuation (19 V.S.A. § 503(a)(1)-(2)). The owner or a designee must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the inspection (§ 503(a)(3)).
• Written offer. "Prior to the initiation of negotiations, the Agency shall prepare a written offer of just compensation, which shall include a statement of the basis for the offer and a legal description of the property proposed to be acquired" (19 V.S.A. § 503).
• Appraisal copy. "A copy of an appraisal or an estimated valuation (waiver valuation) shall be furnished by the Agency at the owner's request" (19 V.S.A. § 503(d)).

Challenging the taking itself

The notice of rights in 19 V.S.A. § 503(d) states the first trap plainly: "The property owner has the right to challenge the taking by contesting the necessity of the taking, the public purpose of the project, or both, but must contest these issues by filing an answer to the complaint with the court. If the owner does not file a timely answer, the court may enter a default judgment in favor of the Agency."

At the hearing, "The court shall presume that the Agency's determination of the necessity for and public purpose of a project is correct, unless a party demonstrates bad faith or abuse of discretion on the part of the Agency." But "The court shall review de novo the Agency's determination of the need to take a particular property and to take it to the extent proposed" (19 V.S.A. § 505(a)(3)).

If an owner contests necessity or public purpose, the final hearing is held within 90 days after the deadline for filing an answer by the last interested person served (19 V.S.A. § 505(a)(1)).

The second trap concerns money. Under 19 V.S.A. § 506(c), "Except in the case of agreed compensation, an owner's acceptance and use of a payment under this section does not affect his or her right to contest or appeal damages under sections 511-513 of this chapter but shall bar the owner's right to contest necessity and public purpose."

When title passes

Within 15 business days of a judgment of condemnation, or of a notice of condemnation the Agency prepares after an owner stipulates, the Agency must record it in the town clerk's office and tender to the owner, or deposit with the court, the amount of its offer of just compensation (19 V.S.A. § 506(a)). Title vests in the State, and the Agency may proceed with the project, once it has done both and has mailed or delivered a notice of taking (§ 506(b)). That notice of taking starts the 90-day period to contest compensation (§ 511(a)(3)).

Challenging the amount of compensation

"To contest the amount of compensation received, the owner must file an action with the Transportation Board or in Superior Court within 90 days of the notice of taking, except that the issue of compensation (damages) must be decided by the Superior Court if the owner's demand exceeds the Agency's offer of just compensation by more than $25,000.00" (19 V.S.A. § 503(d)). Section 511 repeats the deadline: a petition, complaint or motion may be filed "not later than 90 days after the date of the notice of taking required under subsection 506(b) of this chapter." An owner whose demand exceeds the offer by $25,000 or less may petition the Transportation Board or file in Superior Court; above that, only Superior Court (§ 511(a)(1)-(2)). A petition filed with the Board in error is transferred to Superior Court, and the owner then pays the applicable court filing fees (§ 511(a)(4)). Unless the parties agree or the Board or court finds it in the public interest to proceed, damages proceedings are stayed until any appeal on necessity or public purpose is finally decided (§ 511(c)).

"Upon demand, a party is entitled to a jury trial in Superior Court on the issue of damages" (19 V.S.A. § 511(d)). A party dissatisfied with a Transportation Board damages decision may appeal to a Superior Court where the land is situated "within 30 days after the date of the decision," with a jury trial on demand (§ 513(a), (b)), and a Superior Court damages decision may be appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court (§ 513(c)).

How highway damages are measured

Under 19 V.S.A. § 501(2), "Damages resulting from the taking or use of property under the provisions of this chapter shall be the value for the most reasonable use of the property or right in the property, and of the business on the property, and the direct and proximate decrease in the value of the remaining property or right in the property and the business on the property." The same definition continues: "The added value, if any, to the remaining property or right in the property which accrues directly to the owner of the property as a result of the taking or use, as distinguished from the general public benefit, shall be considered in the determination of damages." The measure therefore includes the business on the property and, in a partial taking, the loss in value of the remainder, with any such direct added value to the remainder also considered.

Neither the highway chapter (19 V.S.A. chapter 5) nor the utility condemnation sections of 30 V.S.A. chapter 3 add a percentage bonus for a home or principal residence.

Attorney fees and litigation expenses

The highway chapter shifts litigation expenses to the Agency in these situations:

• Failed or abandoned taking. "If the court finds a proposed taking to be unlawful, or if the Agency abandons the condemnation proceeding other than under a settlement, the court shall dismiss the complaint and award the property owner his or her costs and reasonable litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred because of the proceeding" (19 V.S.A. § 505(d)(1)).
• Reduced taking. "If the court issues a judgment of condemnation that substantially reduces the scope of the Agency's proposed taking, the court shall award the property owner a share of his or her costs and reasonable litigation expenses that is proportional to the reduction in the proposed taking" (19 V.S.A. § 505(d)(2)).
• Inverse condemnation. "If a court renders judgment in favor of a property owner in an inverse condemnation action or if the Agency effects a settlement of an inverse condemnation action, the court shall award the owner his or her reasonable costs and other litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney's, appraisal, and engineering fees actually incurred because of the proceeding" (19 V.S.A. § 514(b)).

In a damages case, costs follow the result: the owner recovers reasonable costs only if the court's award is more than the Agency's offer of just compensation or offer of judgment, whichever is greater; if the award is less than or equal to the greater of those, the court awards the Agency its reasonable costs (19 V.S.A. § 514(a)). That subsection shifts costs, not attorney fees.

Timing matters for inverse condemnation. The Vermont Supreme Court has held that the six-year limit for civil actions in 12 V.S.A. § 511, not the 15-year limit for recovering land in § 501, applies to both physical and regulatory inverse condemnation claims (Nesti v. Agency of Transportation, 2023 VT 1).

Relocation and surplus land

For state highway projects, the Agency follows the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act and its implementing regulations (19 V.S.A. § 502(a)). Vermont's own relocation chapter adds that "The Agency shall pay to eligible persons, displaced by construction of a highway project undertaken by the State of Vermont, reasonable and necessary moving expenses caused by their displacement from real property acquired for these purposes" (19 V.S.A. § 2102).

For land acquired in advance for highway use "within the reasonably foreseeable future," if the Agency determines the land is no longer necessary for use as a highway, "it shall immediately sell the property at public sale to private persons, giving consideration to the adjoining landowners" (19 V.S.A. § 502(e)). Other land or buildings the Agency acquired that become no longer necessary "may" be sold or leased (19 V.S.A. § 26(a)(1)(C)). Neither section gives the former owner a right to buy the land back.

Takings by Towns and Cities

When a city, town, village or fire district needs land for public use and the owner refuses to convey it for a reasonable price, its board sets out and surveys the land, gives at least ten days' notice of a hearing, and determines the damages, which "shall be paid or tendered to such persons before taking possession of the lands" (24 V.S.A. § 2805). For enclosed or improved land, the time to remove buildings, fences, timber, wood or trees "shall not, without the consent of the owner, be less than three months nor until compensation for damages to such lands is tendered or paid" (§ 2807). A person dissatisfied with the location or the damages may petition the Superior Court "within 60 days of the recording of the order," and the court appoints three disinterested commissioners on necessity and damages (§ 2810). Title vests when the damages finally awarded are paid (§ 2812).

Town highways run under 19 V.S.A. chapter 7. The town pays or tenders the damages the selectboard determines reasonable before the highway is opened (§ 712). Without the owner's consent, the time to vacate is at least two months, or at least six months if the land taken has buildings (§ 713). An owner who objects to the necessity of the taking, the layout or the damages may appeal to the Superior Court; "The appeal shall be filed within 30 days after the order of the selectboard members on the highway is recorded," and each appellant is entitled to a jury trial on damages (§ 740).

Vermont Easement and Eminent Domain Laws at a Glance

Related Vermont Property Guides

• Easement laws by state
• Eminent domain laws by state
• Vermont squatters rights and adverse possession
• Vermont property records
• Vermont quitclaim deeds

This article provides general legal information about Vermont law, not legal advice. Easement and condemnation disputes depend on deeds, surveys and the facts of each case. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Vermont or the agency acquiring the property.

Last updated: 2026-10-19.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it take to get a prescriptive easement in Vermont?

Generally fifteen years. The Vermont Supreme Court requires use that is open, notorious, hostile and continuous for fifteen years, with acquiescence by the owner (Community Feed Store v. Northeastern Culvert, 1989), a period that matches the 15-year limit on actions to recover land in 12 V.S.A. § 501. That limitations chapter does not extend to State land or land appropriated to a public, pious or charitable use (12 V.S.A. § 462).

Is there an easement by necessity in Vermont?

Yes, under case law. When the division and sale of commonly owned land leaves one parcel entirely without access to a public road, the grantee of the landlocked parcel is entitled to a way of necessity over the remaining lands of the common grantor or successors (Traders, Inc. v. Bartholomew, 1983). Vermont's highway and private road chapters (19 V.S.A. chapters 7 and 27) do not add a separate private-condemnation route for landlocked owners. An unrecorded way of necessity that is not visibly used can be extinguished under the marketable record title law (Gray v. Treder, 2018 VT 137).

Who pays to maintain a shared private road in Vermont?

Unless an express agreement or requirement governs maintenance, each person who enjoys a common benefit from the private road must contribute rateably to the cost, and each has the right to bring a civil action to enforce that requirement (19 V.S.A. § 2702).

Can Vermont take land for a private developer?

Not primarily for economic development. 12 V.S.A. § 1040 says no governmental or private entity may take private property through eminent domain if the taking is primarily for economic development, unless the property is taken under the urban renewal chapter, 24 V.S.A. chapter 85. The section also does not affect condemnation for transportation, public utility, public property, building, hospital and park, or water, drainage and waste disposal projects (12 V.S.A. § 1040(b)).

How long do I have to challenge compensation for a Vermont highway taking?

To contest the amount of compensation, the owner must file within 90 days of the notice of taking, with the Transportation Board or in Superior Court, but only in Superior Court if the owner's demand exceeds the Agency's offer by more than $25,000 (19 V.S.A. §§ 503(d), 511). A Transportation Board damages decision may be appealed to Superior Court within 30 days after the decision (19 V.S.A. § 513). Contesting necessity or public purpose is separate: it requires a timely answer to the Agency's complaint, and accepting and using the Agency's payment bars it (19 V.S.A. §§ 503(d), 506).

Does Vermont pay attorney fees in eminent domain cases?

In highway takings, yes in situations the statute names: when the court finds a proposed taking unlawful or the Agency abandons the proceeding other than under a settlement (19 V.S.A. § 505(d)(1)), and when the owner wins or the Agency settles an inverse condemnation action (19 V.S.A. § 514(b)). Fees then include reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees actually incurred. If the judgment substantially reduces the scope of the taking, the owner receives a proportional share of costs and reasonable litigation expenses (§ 505(d)(2)). In an ordinary damages case only costs shift: to the owner if the award is more than the greater of the Agency's offer or offer of judgment, otherwise to the Agency (§ 514(a)).

Does Vermont pay extra for taking a home?

Neither the state highway condemnation chapter (19 V.S.A. chapter 5) nor the utility condemnation sections of 30 V.S.A. chapter 3 add a percentage bonus for a home. Highway damages are the value for the most reasonable use of the property and of the business on it, plus the direct and proximate decrease in value of the remaining property and business; any added value that accrues directly to the owner's remaining property, as distinguished from the general public benefit, is also considered (19 V.S.A. § 501(2)).