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
539 charsSchmitt next contends that he should be compensated by Force for having to store her property in one of the rooms of his house which he claims he could have otherwise rented out. However, Judge French made findings on the record that the contract was void and unenforceable, thus any legal right to storage fees under the lease agreement or landlord/tenant common law would be inapplicable. Indeed, the court found that the relationship between Schmitt and Force was far more akin to a romantic living arrangement whereby legal obligations