Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)

Citation
Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Parent Document
Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2018-03-12

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text

3,600 chars
10
77. In or around 2015, Jim again demanded that John vacate the farmhouse. John refused and
    told Jim he had changed the locks and that Jim had to stay away. Since that comment
    Jim did not go to the police, or amend his pleadings in this case.
78. For about a six-month period in 2015 Jim served time in a federal work camp, serving
    time for a federal conviction involving the sale and/or transport of stolen vehicles. John
    was questioned, but never charged with a crime from those incidents, indicating John had
    no active co-involvement in the illegal activity. It is unclear if the criminal charges
    related to Pride Auto-related activities by Jim, but that is probably likely. No evidence on
    that topic was introduced.
79. The payment and non payment of real estate taxes due against the Subject Property is
    complicated. Once again the Parties threw around rough figures, and apart from some
    historic tax bills received by Jim and a one page summary referenced below – no records
    of sums actually paid or not paid, or balances claimed due by the Town or tax sale
    announcements, were provided to the court.
80. Only snippets of the actual tax bill status may be derived from the evidence as the parties
    presented their evidence.
81. The Life Lease was recorded in the town and the $60,000 consideration paid was noted
    and a Vermont Property Transfer Tax return was filed. From that point there were two
    sets of owners of taxable portions of the fee interest with in the Subject Property. First
    there was Jim. He owned the farmhouse outright, and (after Rose died), a one fifth
    (formerly one sixth) interest in the open land and non-residential property improvements.
    He also had ownership (subject to the Severances’ life estates) of the remainderman
    portion of the property (apart from his residence) and any structures the Severances did
    not remove during their life estate. It appears that the permanent improvements the
    Severances made to the trailer sites (road improvements; bridges; septic; water) were tax
    assessed as some of the non-homestead part of the property on Jim’s tax bills. It appears
    the tax bills sent to Jim listed everything on the land except the mobile homes the
    Severances added. (See Ex.16).
82. The Severances brought mobile homes onto the Subject Property. It appears (although no
    tax bills were admitted to this effect) that the Severances were taxed by the town for their
    ownership of the mobile homes they placed on the Subject Property.
83. There are two aspects to this taxation situation. First the Town sent two separate tax bills,
    to the two sets of owners with an interest in the Subject Property – one to Jim for the
    farmhouse homestead and land/non mobile home buildings; the second to the Severances
    (for the mobile homes). The second aspect is that strictly speaking the Town did not
    precisely allocate the taxable fee simple in the property to the precise real interests
    deeded or conveyed by Jim to the Severances under the Life Lease. Under the Life Lease,
    while one of them was alive, the Severances were responsible for 4/5th (5/6ths when Rose
    was alive) of the open land and/outbuildings’ taxes on the Subject Property, as they had a
    real interest (their life estates) in the Subject Property, not just ownership of three mobile
    homes.
84. The Severances paid some (but not all) of their mobile home taxes. As to their
    contributions to the 4/5ths of the non-homestead land shown on Jim’s bill – it appears the