Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Citation
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Parent Document
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-04-13
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8209871/andrus-v-dunbar/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
Full Text
664 chars¶ 16: The tenant also appeals the court’s failure to allow his counterclaim before it entered judgment for landlord. Because this issue may recur, we address it. Tenant argues that he was denied the opportunity to formally present the counterclaim because the court never ruled on his motion to dismiss. The landlord responds that the trial court properly deferred action on the motion to dismiss, the court considered the motion at the hearing on the merits, and the tenant waived the opportunity to file a counterclaim by failing to do so within ten days of the court’s postponement. Tenant responds that the court did not properly postpone action on the motion.