Eliason v. Harrison (2018)

Citation: Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Parent Document: Eliason v. Harrison (2018)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2018-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026732/eliason-v-harrison/ ↗

Full Text

725 chars

The Board’s order therefore became a final judgment, though the effect of this judgment
is admittedly confusing. The Board found the Harrisons’ owed a certain amount, and that their
failure to return the security deposit in the first instance was not willful. Neither party may re-
litigate now. See Daiello v. Town of Vernon, 2018 VT 17, ¶ 12 (“Claim preclusion bars the
litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the
parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). The Harrisons may not argue the amount due the Eliasons; equally,
the Eliasons may not re-argue the Board’s non-willful finding.

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text