The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of Mountain Top Resort — a well-known cross-country skiing spot in Chittenden — in the latest development of over a yearlong legal fight with an adjoining neighbor, who altered the route of two of the resort’s ski trails.
The clash with Mountain Top began in the summer of 2024 when the neighbors in the dispute, John and Deborah Gerlach, relocated two trails without consulting the resort, according to the original lawsuit filed by Mountain Top, which claimed the trails pose a safety hazard for guests and would be difficult to groom.
The Gerlach duo have said that they moved the trails because skiers wander onto their property and they want to log the area. They have argued in court filings that they are allowed to alter trails that fall across the 600 acre property they bought in 2018 under the terms of the easement on the land.
In general, an easement gives a legal right to a person or organization to use a portion of land that some else owns for a particular purpose, in this case allowing Mountain Top to operate trails that fall on the Gerlach property.
Mountain Top said in court filings that any trails property owners change must provide “substantially similar access” for skiers under the terms of easement, and the new trails did not meet this bar. Mountain Top has similar easements with other neighbors and the Green Mountain National Forest.
The Supreme Court ruling this week follows a preliminary injunction in October 2024 by Superior Court Judge Alexander Burke against the Gerlachs, allowing Mountain Top to operate the original trails during the course of the litigation and prohibiting the Gerlachs from obstructing the resort’s maintenance and safeguards for guests.
In May of 2025, Burke held John Gerlach in contempt for violating the injunction by detaching ropes put up by Mountain Top barring access to unsafe trails for guests. In July of last year, the Gerlachs appealed solely the contempt order in the case to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The case between the resort and the Gerlach family before the Rutland unit of the Superior Court has been moving forward during the appeal, Mountain Top’s attorney Christopher Roy said during an interview Thursday.
The Gerlach’s have also appealed another case last summer pitting property rights against outdoor recreationists’ access to trails in the town of Chittenden to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Gerlach duo sued the town of Chittenden over whether the town has a right to operate a public hiking trail cutting through their property.
The Superior Court ruled in May in favor of the town of Chittenden, asserting that previous owners intended to set aside hiking trails for public use. The appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court is still awaiting a decision.
A Florida businessman who grew up in Rutland Town, John Gerlach is no stranger to property-related clashes in Vermont. In 2020, the town of Proctor turned down Gerlach’s $1.5 million offer for 1,650 acres of watershed land the town owned in Chittenden after local pushback.
In a Tuesday Vermont Supreme Court hearing with Mountain Top, the Gerlach’s attorney Mark Hall argued that the injunction was vague and did not specify a prohibition of taking ropes down.
“Mr. Gerlach was not on notice that ropes across the trail were part of the injunctive order issued by the court,” Hall said.
Hall declined to comment during the pending litigation.
Mountain Top’s other attorney, Gina Puls, argued Tuesday that ropes were specifically mentioned as part of the resort’s efforts to improve guest safety, and the Gerlach’s could have asked for clarification.
In the Friday decision, Vermont Supreme justices Harold Eaton, Nancy Waples and Mary Morrissey said that ropes closing trailheads are common practice for 20 years at Mountain Top, and the preliminary injunction aimed to block the Gerlach’s inference with reasonable safety measures.
“The court acted within its discretion in finding Mr. Gerlach in contempt here,” the three justices wrote. “Mr. Gerlach may disagree with the use of a rope to mark closed trails, and disagree about what constitutes an appropriate safety step,” adding that his reasoning didn’t justify what they considered a violation of the injunction.
Roy said he hopes that the case can be mediated in the spring to clarify both parties’ legal rights and find a compromise on alternative trails.
“Once the snow melts and our expert has a chance to come up with his opinions, then we’ll take a shot at settling it through mediation,” Roy said. “If that doesn’t work, then we’ll be teed up for trial.”
