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
675 charsThe actual tenancy was short—two months. This occurred because soon after the tenancy began, Ms. Cook became dissatisfied with the condition in which Ms. Brunton and her partner were keeping the premises and because they allegedly were not getting it in showable shape for prospective buyers. Toward the middle of the second month of the tenancy, the parties’ relationship had soured. There is evidence in the record, and the court so found, that Ms. Cook told Ms. Brunton to vacate by the end of August because a new tenant would be moving in first thing on September 1. Ms. Brunton and her partner did vacate prior to September 1. Ms. Cook retained their security deposit.