Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Full Text

728 chars
*558¶ 18. The superior court never explicitly ruled on tenant’s motion to dismiss and never considered the issues raised in it until the merits hearing. Landlord argues, however, that the court, at the rent escrow hearing, postponed action on the motion, and this ruling triggered tenant’s obligation to file an answer and any counterclaims within ten days. We agree that the court thought it would make this ruling, but cannot agree that it did so. The court issued no written ruling to this effect, and the docket entries contain no statement of an oral ruling. See V.R.C.P. 79(a) (requiring all “orders” to be entered in the civil docket and docket entries to show “the nature and subject matter” of each order of the court).