Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)

Citation: Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Parent Document: Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2018-03-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026703/moorcroft-v-severance/ ↗

Full Text

1,587 chars

Because the Life Lease instrument’s language does not address remedies for the breach
of tax payments, the court looks to the instrument of the whole and the circumstances
surrounding its execution. The last paragraph of the Life Lease’s page summarizes the “intent of
this document” as providing the Severances a life lease, but also to provide them real property
“on which to establish domiciles, and to farm, and to otherwise work”, while allowing Mr.
Moorcroft to continue his domicile on the same property. The clause also states the intent of the
parties was to “provide the Landlord and the Tenants with dominion and control over the
premises as if they were all equal co-tenants”, except for their private residences. The Life Lease
allowed the Severances to make improvements to the Subject Property and “build” personal
residences on the property, and not only live there, but also conduct farming and their own
business on the property, while allowing Mr. Moorcroft parallel joint use of all non-residence
portions of the Subject Property. (“Landlord reserves the right . . . [to] exercise dominion and
control over the entire premises [except Tenants’ residences that may be built] as if Landlord and
the surviving Tenants each owned equal shares”)(Life Lease, Page 1. Third to last paragraph). At
the time the Life Lease was executed, Jim sought to obtain funds to pay his parents, and the
Severances were looking for a place to live. In forging their agreement, the parties negotiated a
relationship by which they shared use of the land except for their private residences.

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text