Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Citation
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-07-10
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
- Benham v. Morton & Furbish Agency, 929 A.2d 471 (2007)
Full Text
785 chars[¶ 23] We are not persuaded by the arguments of the Carons and Morton & Furbish that a tenancy was created by the family’s belief that the cottage was theirs to use exclusively for the term of the rental, or that no one would maintain the premises or provide housekeeping services during their rental. The key to deciding whether there is a lease is whether the occupant is entitled to possession and exclusive occupancy of the premises. The family’s subjective belief that no one would interfere with their possession does not compel the conclusion that the family was entitled to legal possession. Based on the undisputed facts in this case, we conclude that the arrangement did not entitle the vacationing family to possession and exclusive occupancy of the premises.2 D. Conclusion