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

932 chars

The court makes no determination here, but for the benefit of the parties going forward, it
points out that whether there has even been such an agreement between the parties in this case is
by no means clear and certainly was not determined at the July 30 hearing. There, the testimony
was to the effect that, with Plaintiffs’ permission, Steven moved onto the premises after he
divorced and his son needed housing or Steven needed a Royalton residence for his son’s school
purposes. As far as the testimony at the hearing went, the arrangement was completely
gratuitous among family members in its origins. At some point, Steven began contributing more
or less to the expense of property taxes. That is as far as the evidence at the hearing went. Other
than that and the presumptions of counsel, there was no clear evidence presented of a contract
contemplating the payment of rent in exchange for the right to exclusive occupancy.

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text