9
68. In 2015, at the time the Severances sought a status quo order from the court prohibiting
any party from encumbering or trying to convey assets – Jim prepared a UCC Financing
Statement in favor of his parents and had it filed on 6/28/15 with the Vermont Secretary
of State’s Office. No written document conveying a security interest in any of the
described personal property collateral was shown to have been signed at that time.
69. This 2015 activity was likely done by Jim in an effort to “beat out” any formal order
ordering a status quo or to deter forfeiture or restitution proceedings that might flow from
criminal proceedings being pursued against Jim at that time. The Severances filed their
status quo motion on 3/26/15. Between the filing of the motion and the court’s grant of it
in July 2015 Jim’s counsel had sequential requests to withdraw. It is not clear if the
motion to preserve status quo was forwarded to Jim by his then counsel of record.
70. The issues presented in this case, as to the Life Lease and the Parties’ use and occupancy
of the Subject Property, require further findings in the latter developments in the
domestic relationship between Jim and John.
71. The household had certain strains. Money was tight, John developed a back disability.
There were incidents of domestic abuse committed by both domestic partners. Each man
sought one or more relief from abuse orders (“RFA”) against the other. In one 2013
incident Jim displayed a gun, after Jim says he feared for his safety from John. John got a
final RFA order in that incident. There was a stay away RFA order entered against Jim,
but Jim could communicate with John by texts during that time.
72. Jim started to spend time at Shirley and Arthur’s Connecticut home around this time
(2013). His father was ill, and Jim got a UPS truck driver job. Although not expressly
stated, it appears these events occurred at a time when under the RFA Jim likely had to
leave the household where John was living.
73. It might at first appear strange Jim at that time was not, or could not, reside in the
farmhouse which under the Life Lease was the residence reserved for his sole occupancy
and use. This was not however due to the Life Lease’s terms. It was due to subsequent
volitional acts and decisions – the voluntary and consensual commencement of the
farmhouse co-habitation by Jim and John. The 2013 RFA issuance against Jim at a time
when John was able to truthfully state the farmhouse was serving as his lawful residence
(He had taken up residence there by permission – see Legal Analysis below).
74. By in or around 2015, the RFA lapsed and Jim made efforts to be restored to possession
of the farmhouse. This lawsuit was pending by then, but the pleadings included no claim
to evict John from the farmhouse.
75. The close and personal relationship between Jim and John ended in or around 2013 as the
RFA went into effect. Jim made some requests of John to vacate the farmhouse, but John
rebuffed them.
76. During 2013 and thereafter Jim made some trips to the residence to attend to his largely
moribund car sales business. Jim had inventory and equipment stored at the Subject
Property. He was working as a UPS driver in Connecticut and it appears that the Pride
Auto East venture was not that active. (None of the parties provided the court with any
records or figures as to any of the Pride Auto businesses actual or purported earnings for
any time period).