Section 2

Citation: Section 2
Parent Document: Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2015-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489499/highgate-housing-limited-partne... ↗

Full Text

985 chars

Plaintiff’s manager verified with Capital Candy on May 11, 2014 that Joshua had
terminated employment there on December 15, 2013. This verification of termination of
employment did not take place until five months after Defendants gave notice of it. The
evidence does not show any attempt within that period to verify the amount of Joshua’s income
at ARIS, nor to notify Defendants that unless they provided the paystubs, they would be treated
as failing to provide income information. Plaintiff’s witness testified that from March on,
Defendants were given reminders to submit paystubs, but the testimony was vague and
nonspecific and in the passive voice (e.g., “they were reminded”) with no specific information
about who spoke or wrote to whom and what was said or written. The evidence is not
sufficiently specific to credibly support a finding that Defendants failed to provide income
information when they had signed releases twice enabling Plaintiff to verify income with ARIS.

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Full Text