Alden v. Richardson (2017)

Citation: Alden v. Richardson (2017)
Parent Document: Alden v. Richardson (2017)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2017-04-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026635/alden-v-richardson/ ↗

Full Text

681 chars

Ms. Alden objects that there was no “physical evidence” of this charge, presumably
referring to a receipt or some other tangible proof of the charge. She also claims that she should
not be required to pay it because the small claims court found her not liable for the carpet.
However, while documentary proof of the expense may have bolstered Mr. Richardson’s claim,
it was not required, and Ms. Alden did not object to this expense at the hearing. The small
claims court found her not responsible for replacement of the carpet; it did not find her immune
to any claim at all for the carpet, and there was evidence of pet urine stains, indoor smoking, and
odors. 10.     Towel rack

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text