Mack v. Morel (2025)

Citation: Mack v. Morel (2025)
Parent Document: Mack v. Morel (2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-02-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10334687/mack-v-morel/ ↗

Full Text

742 chars

The problem with the Macks’ position in regards to Callahan’s obligation is that it is not
clear whether the “new tenancy” carries over as a written lease, or if the prior lease terms maintain
their force on the parties through implication and the common law. As Bergeron notes, the holdover
circumstance creates a “new contract.” Id. Such a new contract is not a written contract but a legal
construct that adopts and applies the prior written terms through the parties’ course of conduct. At
least one other trial Court has concluded that this means the new contract is not a written lease as
that term is used under 9 V.S.A. § 4467. 37 Perry Street, LLC v. Seaberg, Dckt. No 23-CV-1014, 2023
WL 2605867, at *2 (Apr. 12, 2023) (Tomasi, J.).

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text