campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Citation
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Parent Document
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2025-11-14
- Original Source
- https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19595 ↗
Other Sections in This Document (11)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- campbell v limoge, No. 25-sc-2051 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Full Text
858 charsThe evidence in this case shows that Limoge sent by certified and first-class mail to Campbell’s Apartment address her June 25, 2025 acceptance of Campbell’s June 19, 2025 offer to extend his tenancy through August 31, 2025. Until that time, Campbell had identified the Apartment address as his only address and Limoge consistently communicated successfully with Campbell through mail sent to that address. (Ex’s. 1-3.) Campbell also testified that he tracked Limoge’s June 25, 2025 letter on the U.S. Postal Service website using its tracking number and observed that the letter remained undelivered. This testimony does not suffice to rebut 9 V.S.A. §4451’s rebuttable presumption when taken alongside the other evidence establishing consistently successful communication between Campbell and Limoge through mailings sent to and from the Apartment address.