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/ ↗

Full Text

1,073 chars

Schmitt next objects to findings made by Judge French concerning the pet dog that
resided with Schmitt and Force, which allegedly caused damage to the carpet that Schmitt seeks
replacement costs for. Specifically, Schmitt objects to the Court’s determination that the dog
was the joint responsibility of the parties, and also seeks to introduce new evidence which
supposedly establishes that Force had previously agreed to contribute to the cost of replacing the
carpet. These grounds for appeal are wholly without merit. Judge French made a factual
determination that the dog was jointly cared for by the parties which will not be disturbed by this
Court absent clear abuse of discretion. Here, the mere fact that Schmitt permitted Force to move
in along with her dog while the two were in a romantic relationship strongly suggests that
Schmitt assumed responsibility for the animal. Further, the Court at this stage simply cannot
take into consideration new evidence that was not introduced during the hearing below.
Accordingly, Judge French’s conclusion will be upheld.

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text