Mandating Full Compliance with Injunctions: Defining Scope of Prohibited Discharge and Standards for Contempt

Introduction

This commentary examines the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC, No. 24-AP-258 (Vt. May 9, 2025). The dispute arose when plaintiff Aerie Point Holdings sued neighbor Vorsteveld Farm for trespass and nuisance, alleging that tile-drain runoff from Vorsteveld’s dairy operations carried water, sediment, and phosphorus onto Aerie Point’s lakeshore property. In March 2022 the Superior Court granted injunctive relief, barring any discharge from the farm’s tile drains into the public ditches and culverts that carried water onto the plaintiff’s land. Vorsteveld did not appeal that judgment. When the farm failed to comply, Aerie Point moved for contempt. Vorsteveld resisted, arguing misunderstanding of the injunction, impossibility, and mitigation efforts. The trial court held the farm in contempt, imposed daily coercive fines, awarded attorney’s fees, and repeated that full compliance was required. Vorsteveld’s subsequent appeal to this Court raised challenges to scope, knowledge, and evidentiary findings. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Vermont Supreme Court’s per curiam entry order affirms the trial court’s contempt ruling. Key holdings:

The injunction’s plain language prohibits any water from the tile-drain outlets entering the ditches and culverts that lead to plaintiff’s land. It is not limited to “excess” or “natural” flows.
To prove contempt, plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence (1) a specific court order; (2) defendant’s actual knowledge; and (3) failure to comply. The farm’s owners admitted awareness of the injunction’s requirements.
The burden of proving impossibility or incapacity to comply rests on the contemnor. Vorsteveld presented no credible evidence that compliance was impossible.
The trial court’s factual findings—based on testimony, exhibits, site visits, and expert admissions—are supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Coercive daily fines and attorney’s fees were appropriate to compel performance when voluntary compliance failed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Vt. Women’s Health Ctr. v. Operation Rescue, 159 Vt. 141 (1992): Established that contempt requires clear and convincing proof of a specific order, actual knowledge, and noncompliance, and that the trial court’s discretion will be upheld unless plainly abused.
Spabile v. Hunt, 134 Vt. 332 (1976): Placed on the contemnor the burden of establishing impossibility or inability to comply with an injunction.
State v. Durenleau, 163 Vt. 8 (1994): Held that inferences from circumstantial evidence are permissible if rational, supporting a factual finding.
Lanfear v. Ruggerio, 2020 VT 84, 213 Vt. 322: Confirmed the trial court’s latitude to weigh credibility and evidence in contempt proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision rests on two pillars: (1) construing the injunction by its plain language and context; and (2) applying established contempt doctrine.

Scope of Injunction. The 2022 merits decision enjoined “water, and any particles it carries, from flowing from the … tile drainage system into the public ditches and culverts westerly of [defendant’s] land.” The Supreme Court emphasized that “any water” includes all discharges at the tile-drain outlets. The farm’s argument—that only “excess” water was covered—was refuted by the merits opinion’s finding that the tile system created flows “in excess of the preexisting level of natural drainage.” Therefore the injunction targeted all tile-drain outflow.
Contempt Standards. Under Operation Rescue, a remedy for contempt requires clear-and-convincing proof of (a) a specific injunctive command, (b) awareness by the enjoined party, and (c) failure to comply. The farm’s owners admitted knowledge of the August 2022 order in affidavits and testimony. Their later protests of confusion were found not credible.
Impossibility and Burden. Absent evidence that compliance was impossible, the contemnor must demonstrate the factual impossibility or undue hardship. Vorsteveld offered no credible proof—only delayed, limited mitigation and experimental measures designed to address ten percent of the flow—falling far short of complete prevention.
Remedies and Sanctions. Having concluded non-compliance, the trial court stayed drastic fines to allow mediation. When mediation failed, it reinstated coercive sanctions of $1,000 per day, beginning November 2024, to spur action. Award of attorney’s fees for contempt enforcement was similarly grounded in equitable principles.

Impact

This decision clarifies several important points for Vermont practitioners:

Injunctions will be enforced according to their plain terms; parties cannot carve out “natural” or “excess” qualifiers unless explicitly stated.
Contemnor’s misunderstanding or self-serving reinterpretation of an order will not excuse non-compliance absent credible evidence of ambiguity or impossibility.
Trial courts retain broad discretion to impose coercive fines and fees to ensure compliance with injunctive relief.
A robust record—documenting admissions of knowledge, efforts (or lack thereof), and site observations—plays a pivotal role in contempt proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Injunction: A court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing specified acts.
Contempt: A remedy that compels obedience to a court order, invoked when a party disobeys or willfully ignores an injunction.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A medium-high standard of proof, requiring that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.
Burden of Proof on Contemnor: The party alleged to be in contempt must prove facts that reasonably justify non-compliance, such as impossibility.
Coercive Sanctions: Monetary fines or penalties designed to compel future compliance rather than punish past conduct.

Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court’s affirmation in Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC strengthens the integrity of injunctive relief and clarifies contempt jurisprudence. It underscores that injunctions must be obeyed in accordance with their clear terms, that actual knowledge and a demonstrated opportunity to comply preclude feigned confusion, and that courts may employ coercive monetary sanctions to enforce orders effectively. This precedent will guide future environmental and civil injunction matters, ensuring that parties take affirmative steps to adhere strictly to judicial decrees.