Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Citation
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Parent Document
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2018-08-24
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026764/brunton-v-cook/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (17)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
- Brunton v. Cook (2018)
Full Text
655 charsThe court has listened to the recording of the small claims hearing and reviewed the entire record of this case. The agreement between the parties was twofold. It established a month-to-month residential landlord–tenancy arrangement whereby Ms. Brunton and her partner would pay rent to live in the house. It also obligated them to maintain the premises and have it ready to be “shown” to prospective buyers—it was for sale during the tenancy. While Ms. Cook argues that it was primarily a “contract for services” rather than a “lease agreement,” plainly it was both and, otherwise, those characterizations have no legal impact on the issues in this case.