Legal Opinion

Clayton v. Clayton Investments, Inc.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 13, 2007No. 06-093PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. In Re Stowe Club HighlandsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  2. Humphreys v. McKissockSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. In Re KostenblattSupreme Court of Vermont · 1994
  4. Appeal of Farrell & Desautels, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1978
  5. Bianchi v. LorenzSupreme Court of Vermont · 1997

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Russin v. WessonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  2. Unifund CCR Partners v. Daniel ZimmerSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
  3. In Re Hamm Mine Act 250 JurisdictionSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  4. Century Partners, LP v. Lesser Goldsmith Enterprises, Ltd.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  5. Cold Brook Fire District v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API