Riley v. Dempsey (2005)

Citation: Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
Parent Document: Riley v. Dempsey (2005)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2005-01-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4490187/riley-v-dempsey/ ↗

Full Text

1,337 chars

Ms. Bailey-Dempsey testified that they had wanted to stay in the house, especially after
she 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 or about October 4, that the Dempseys moved out on or
about October 5, and that the disarray that 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 (45)

Full Text