Title: Tucker v. Bushway

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Tucker v. Bushway  (95-606); 166 Vt. 592; 689 A.2d 426

[Filed 10-Dec-1996]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-606

                            NOVEMBER TERM, 1996

Robert and Dorothy Tucker d/b/a      }     APPEALED FROM:
Tucker's Mobile Home Park            }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Washington Superior Court
                                     }
Lorenzo and Karen Bushway            }
                                     }     DOCKET NO.        133-3-95 Wncv

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant tenants own a mobile home located on a lot in a mobile home
  park owned by plaintiff landlords.  Landlords served a notice of
  termination of tenancy on defendants alleging various violations of the
  rental agreement, including nonpayment of rent.  When tenants did not
  vacate the premises by the effective date of the notice, landlords brought
  an action for eviction. On October 18, 1995, the trial court entered
  judgment for landlords, ordering tenants to deliver possession of the
  premises and to pay back rent of $1,465.00.  On November 17, 1995, tenants
  paid all rent due plus interest.  Tenants then moved for discontinuance of
  the action pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4773.  The trial court denied the
  tenants' motion for discontinuance.  We reverse.

       An action for ejectment shall be discontinued if the defendant pays
  into court the rental payments in arrears, with interest and the costs of
  suit, "[b]efore final judgment."  12 V.S.A. § 4773.  Landlords contend that
  the date of final judgment was October 18, 1995, because the order issued
  by the trial court on that date was appealable.  Landlords cite to various
  cases for the proposition that a decision is final if it is appealable. 
  See Titus v. Titus, 128 Vt. 444, 444, 266 A.2d 432, 433 (1970); Beam v.
  Fish, 105 Vt. 96, 97-98, 163 A. 591, 592 (1933).  Thus, landlords argue
  that tenants, who paid the rental arrears on November 17, failed to make
  payment before final judgment.

       We conclude, however, that the term "final judgment" may assume
  different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.  Compare
  In re Waterhouse, 125 Vt. 202, 206,