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 ↗

Full Text

1,014 chars

In that regard, Steven has made the following representation in his motion: “In denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rent Escrow on July 30th, 2025, the court found that under Defendant’s
year-to-year rental agreement beginning in November, Plaintiffs lacked a basis to demand rental
payments on a monthly basis or to institute a rent increase in the middle of a rental period.”
Motion to Dismiss at 2 (filed Sept. 18, 2025). The court has listened to the recording of the July
30 hearing, at the end of which the court (Corbett, J.) made findings and conclusions on the
record. Judge Corbett did not find that there was a year-to-year rental agreement or that there
was any lack of an ability to “institute a rent increase in the middle of a rental period.” See
generally V.R.C.P. 11(b). As to the motion to pay rent into court, he found that there was no rent
currently due, and there was no “meeting of the minds” between Plaintiffs and Steven as to the
purported rent increase in the termination notice. That is it.

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text