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

1,375 chars

However, as also discussed in the factual findings, under the Life Lease, the parties had
another relationship created by the instrument – that of tenants in common in possession of the
land. (The court separately treats the issue of John’s co-possession of the Moorcroft farm
residence, analyzed in Part a above). As to the rest of the common property of the Subject
Property, the court finds that the parties have shared use and possession of the property (with the
Severance-placed trailers to be possessed by them or their tenants as the Life Lease allows).
There is insufficient evidence of ouster or adverse possession of the Subject Property as to one
set of tenants in common against the other. To the extent the property taxes were not paid, it
appears that the Severances are responsible for more of the overdue balance owed to the Town
than Mr. Moorcroft, but the court cannot determine who owes what. However, if Mr.
Moorcroft’s Life Lease breach claim against the Severances is that for claimed back taxes, to the
extent the parties’ relationship is that of tenants in common, the appropriate remedy to seek to
collect a co-tenant’s unpaid portion of taxes or property carrying expenses is through an
accounting.   See 12 V.S.A. section 4251(1); Holmes v. Best, 58 Vt. 547 (1886). Co-tenants do
not get to oust or eject each other over the issue of unpaid taxes.

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text