riley v. dempsey (2023)

Citation: riley v. dempsey (2023)
Parent Document: riley v. dempsey (2023)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2023-11-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9440801/riley-v-dempsey/ ↗

Full Text

1,365 chars

Ms. Bailey-Dempsey testified that they had wanted to stay in the house, especially after she
Wie, broke her ankle in late September of 2003, but that Mr. Riley had insisted that they leave because
he needed to move back in. She also testified that she worked out an arrangement with Mr. Riley
~ that they would have additional time to complete the cleaning and to move out their belongings.
» Moving was difficult for her because she was on crutches. The Dempseys sent Mr. Riley a check
to cover rent through October 4. He cashed it, and he never asked for additional rent until months
~~ later, when he claimed additional rent as a defense to Mr. Dempsey’s counterclaim for return of the
=“ deposit. In addressing this second issue, the Small Claims Court found that Mr. Riley had insisted,
™ over Dempsey’s objections, that he had to move back into his house, that Riley moved back in on
2 or about October 4, that the Dempseys moved out on or about October 5, and that the disarray that
3 occurred between October 4 and October 29 was not unusual “in the context of a somewhat sudden
and premature termination of the lease.” (Findings 13, 16, 17, and 19). The court concluded that
™ Mr. Riley had forced the Dempseys out of the house before they wished to leave, and that there was
- ©" no basis for awarding rent for the period of October 4 to October 29, 2003.

Other Sections in This Document (47)

Full Text