Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Citation
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Parent Document
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-03-10
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489909/schmitt-v-force/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (38)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
- Schmitt v. Force (2011)
Full Text
597 charsLastly, the Court determined that the pet dog was the joint property of the two parties while it resided in Schmitt’s home. The Court found that had the relationship not failed, the damage the dog caused would have been overlooked by Plaintiff. However, because the relationship did not succeed, the Court did not find it appropriate to now permit Schmitt to use the dog and any alleged damage it caused as a way to extract payments from Force to replace a carpet and flooring, which, as the evidence suggests, was likely already highly damaged prior to the time Force moved in. Standard of Review