rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Citation
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Parent Document
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2025-12-11
- Original Source
- https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19666 ↗
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Full Text
594 charsThis is an unusual residential eviction action. Plaintiffs/Landowners Barbara Rogers and Brian Rogers are seeking to evict Defendant Steven Rogers from a mobile home on the property that also includes the home in which Barbara and Brian live.! Brian and Steven are adult brothers; Barbara is their mother. Plaintiffs served Steven with a notice to vacate for no cause. Steven has refused to vacate, prompting this case. With his answer, Steven has asserted counterclaims styled as illegal eviction, financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult, retaliation, consumer fraud, and for betterments.