Clayton v. Clayton Investments, Inc.
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the Court
¶ 1. Defendant, Clayton Investments, Inc., appeals a decision of the superior court that deeds offered by it to plaintiff, Steven Clayton, failed to comply with the parties’ option-to-purchase agreement. Defendant contends the court “re-wrote” the option by invalidating parking restrictions and a provision for common area maintenance (CAM) fees in its suggested deeds. Defendant further contends the court erroneously failed to address its claim for past-due CAM fees, raised for the first time at trial. We modify the decision of the superior court and, as modified, affirm it.
¶ 2. The facts of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- In Re Stowe Club HighlandsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
- Humphreys v. McKissockSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- In Re KostenblattSupreme Court of Vermont · 1994
- Appeal of Farrell & Desautels, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1978
- Bianchi v. LorenzSupreme Court of Vermont · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Russin v. WessonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Daniel ZimmerSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
- In Re Hamm Mine Act 250 JurisdictionSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
- Century Partners, LP v. Lesser Goldsmith Enterprises, Ltd.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2008
- Cold Brook Fire District v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.