Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Brattleboro Savings and Loan Association v. Hardie

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 21, 2014No. 2012-332Published

1Concurrence

Burgess, J.,

¶ 20. concurring. I concur with the majority’s mandate as well as its underlying reasoning, but I also concur with Judge Bent’s opinion as an alternative basis for reversing the superior court summary judgment decisions.

¶ 21. Bent, Supr. J., Specially Assigned, concurring. I concur with the majority’s mandate because Mangini cannot rely upon 27 V.S.A. § 141(a) to avoid an existing mortgage that merely refinanced a debt on the homestead that existed before she established the homestead. Under the circumstances of this case, I agree with the majority that neither her pending divorce…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Swift v. KraemerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Winkles v. PowellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  3. Speck v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Rendleman v. RendlemanIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Katsivalis v. Serrano Reconveyance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1977

9 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