Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)

Citation: Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Parent Document: Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2018-03-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026703/moorcroft-v-severance/ ↗

Full Text

1,525 chars

Jim lacks standing to pursue any alleged breach of the Promissory Note. The Life Lease
expressly states that “[a]ny breach of said Promissory Note shall not be a breach of the [Life]
Lease. Ex. A, at Page 1). When looking at a real estate instrument such as a deed, the court must
accept the plain meaning of the language the parties have chosen and not look to other
construction aids if that language is not ambiguous. Kipp v. Estate of Chipps, 1689 Vt. 102, 107
(1999); LeBlanc v. Snelgrove, 2015 VT 112, Para. 30, 200 Vt. 570. The Life Lease is
unambiguous that non-payment of the Promissory Note does not violate the Life Lease.
13
Similar results occur if contract interpretation principles are applied. In interpreting a
contract the court looks to the intent of the parties as it is expressed in their writing. Prue v.
Royer, 2013 VT 12, ¶ 20, 193 Vt. 267; Southwick v. City of Rutland, 2011 VT 53, ¶ 4, 190 Vt.
106. Where the contract is unambiguous it controls that interpretation. Id. The conclusion that
non-payment of the Promissory Note does not violate the Life Lease is not contrary to the
expressed intent of the parties to the Life Lease. Jim still received the full $60,000 in
consideration for the Life Lease from the Severances. Twenty thousand was paid in cash. The
next $40,000 was provided by delivery of an enforceable promissory note delivered to Jim to
provide Shirley and Arthur for sums Jim owed them.
2. Count 1 – Ejectment

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text