Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Citation
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Parent Document
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2018-06-26
Other Sections in This Document (41)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
- Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Full Text
740 charsThe City of Burlington Housing Board of Review found the Eliasons were entitled to recover $1,530.39 as the amount the Harrisons improperly withheld. The Board also found the withholding was not willful. The Harrisons have still not returned this ordered amount. Pursuant to 9 V.S.A. § 4461(e), the Eliasons seek double the amount withheld plus 12% interest and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. They argue the Harrisons’ failure to comply with the Board’s judgment is now a willful withholding. The Harrisons attempt to re-argue the Board’s order, claiming “rightful possession” of the deposit is at issue in this litigation as the Board did not have evidence regarding the Eliasons true motive for calling the Code Enforcement Office.