Title: Lussier v. Truax

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.93-187; 161 Vt. 611; 643 A.2d 843

[Filed 22-Dec-1993]

                                ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-187

                            DECEMBER TERM, 1993


 Roger Lussier, et al              }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          Chittenden Superior Court
                                   }
                                   }
 Paul W. & Colleen M. Truax, et al }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. S1078-91CnC
 
 
              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:
 
      Defendants appeal from partial summary judgment entitling plaintiffs to
 possession of premises occupied by defendants as tenants.  Defendants sought
 to avoid eviction by claiming that the parties' most recent agreement was a
 financing arrangement requiring plaintiffs to proceed by foreclosure rather
 than eviction proceedings.  On appeal, defendants argue reversal is
 required because (1) the affidavits and documents they submitted were
 sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact -- whether the
 parties' agreement was a financing arrangement that created a mortgagee-
 mortgagor relationship rather than a landlord-tenant relationship; (2) by
 granting summary judgment, the judge improperly reversed another superior
 court judge who had denied plaintiffs' first motion for summary judgment
 approximately a year earlier; and (3) the court failed to hold a hearing
 before granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  We affirm.

     In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we apply the same
 standard of review as that applied by the trial court.  Morrisville Lumber
 Co. v. Okcuoglu, 148 Vt. 180, 182-83,