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
483 charsTo the extent that Steven has argued that the notice or any other conduct by Plaintiffs is so confusing or equivocal that he is unable to discern their intentions, the motion is denied. To the extent that he argues that the notice is invalid because it seeks to terminate the tenancy for no cause in the middle of his year-to-year rental period, the motion is denied because the fact of a year-to-year rental period is an extra-record fact that is not cognizable under Rule 12(b)(6).