mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Citation
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Parent Document
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2025-07-16
- Original Source
- https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19222 ↗
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
- mtc vt v warner, No. 25-cv-1707 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Full Text
488 chars3 [T]he Board finds that the Unit needed minor drywall repair and paint touchups because the tenants posted decorations on the walls. Decorating walls is part of the ordinary use and enjoyment of a residential unit. As such, the Board finds there was nothing extraordinary or abusive about the tenants’ use of the premises, so that the damage constituted ordinary wear and tear and not extraordinary damage to the Unit for which [Landlord] could withhold sums from the security deposit.