VermontSuperiorCourtFiled01Franldl/n30412it4

## VERMONTSUPERIOR

## COURT

## CIVILDIVISIONFranklinUnitCaseNos.

### 22-CV-0054717

### ChurchStreet

### 22-CV-4537St.

### Albans

## VT05478

### 802-524-7993WWW.Vermontjudiciary.org$4

## DECISIONON

## MOTION

# FOR

# PARTIALSUMMARY

# JUDGMENTPlaintiff

### EricNyeseeksto

### evictDefendant

### Boissoneault

### FamilyFarm,Inc.

## (“BFFI”)fromfarmpremises,atleastsome

### ofwhich

### BFFIhas

### occupiedsince

### 2007.

### Initially,

### BFFIoccupiedthepropertypursuantto

### writtenlease.

### Theparties

### nowdisputetheextentto

### whichthatlease

### now

### governs.

### Mr.

### Nyecontendsthat,pursuanttothe

### lease’sholdover

### provision,

### itbecamemonth-to-monthlease,terrninableon

### thirty

### days’notice,attheend

### ofthe

### initialone-yearterm.Inresponse,

## BFFIcontendsthat

### bymutualagreement

### oftheparties,theleasebecameanannuallease,terminable

### onlyon

### sixmonths’notice.

### Mr.

### Nyehas

### movedforpartialsummary

### judgmentonthisquestion.

### Thecourtdeniesthemotion.

### Theparties’papers

### establishthe

### followingnarrative

### ofundisputedfacts.In

### 2007,thepartiesexecuted

### writtenlease.

### Thelease

### was

### forterm

### of“oneyear,

### commencingon

### Oct23,

### 2007,and

### endingon

### Oct23

### 2008renewable

### yearly.”Notably,“renewable

### yearly”ishandwritten

### additionto

### whatappearstobe

### stockform

### oflease.It

### isperhaps

### unsurprising,then,thattheleasenowhere

### specifies

### howrenewalistooccur.

### Furtheron

### inthedocument,

### however,

### itprovides,15.6

### HoldingOver.

## IfTenantremains

### inpossession

### ofthe

### Premisesor

### anypart

### thereofafterthe

### expiration

### oftheterm

### hereof

### withouttheexpress

### writtenconsent

### ofLandlord,such

### occupancyshallbe

### tenancyfrommonthtomonthatrental

### inamount

### ofthe

### last

### monthlyrental,andupon

### alltheterms

### hereofapplicabletomonth-to-month

### tenancy,

### witheither

### party

### havingthe

### righttoterminate

### Within

### thirty

### (30)days

### prior

### writtennotice.

### BFFIhasremained

### inpossession

### oftheleasedpremises

### since

### 2007.

### Duringthat

### time,theparties

### havenotexecuted

### any

### written

### modificationsorextensions

### ofthelease.

### Rather,

### all

### oftheir

### dealingshavebeenoral.

### OnNovember11,

### 2022,Mr.

### Nyesent

### notice

### ofterminationto

### BFFI.Thenoticepurportedtoterminate

## BFFI’stenancy

### “effectivethirtydaysfromreceipt

### ofthisletteror

### December16,

### 2022DecisiononMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentPageof22—CV—00547EricNye,IIetalv.BoissonneaultFamilyFarm,Inc.

### EricNye,

### IIet

### alV.

### Boissonneault

### FamilyFarm,Inc.VermontSuperiorCourt

### Fed01/30Franklmnzit

### whicheveroccurs

### first.”Mr.

### Nye’sWifehand-deliveredthe

### noticeto

## BFFI’sPresidenton

### November12,

### 2022.

### OnNovember14,

### 2022,

## BFFI’sPresident

### acknowledgedreceipt

### ofthe

### copy

### ofthe

### noticethathadbeensent

### bycertifiedmail.

## BFFIremains

### inpossession

### ofthepremisestothisday.

### Mr.

### Nyearguesthatonthese

### facts,his

### notice

### ofterminationwas

### effective,andsohe

### isentitledto

### judgment

### forpossessionasmatter

### oflaw.

### While

### BFFIdoesnotdisputethe

### factsabove,

### itarguesthatthereareothermaterial

### factsthatpreclude

### summary

### judgment.

### Specifically,itassertsthat

### from

### 2008,

### itand

### Mr.

### Nyeoperatedonhandshakebasis.

### Itassertsthat

### byoralagreement,theparties

### modifiedtheleasearrangementtobeanannuallease,

### withrent

### paid

### annually

### inOctober,

### justbeforetaxesonthe

### propertyweredue.

### Itnotesalsothat

### beginning

### inthe

### earlyyears

### ofthe

### relationship,theparties

### orallyincreasedthescope

### oftheleaseto

### includeadditionalacreage,

### whichacreage,andtheamount

### payable,

### variedfrom

### yeartoyear.

### Finally,itnotesthatas

### result

### oftheseandother

### conversations,itmadesubstantial

### capitalimprovements,

### whichit

### wouldnot

### havemadeabsentagreementto

### longerleasetermthan

### month-to-month.

### Mr.

### Nyehasnotattemptedto

### disprovethese

### facts;instead,hearguesthat

### theyarenotmaterial.

### Ofcourse,

### itishis

### initialburdento

### showanabsence

### ofdispute

### ofmaterialfact.

### E.

## g,Couturev.

### Trainer,2017

## VT73,1]9,

### 205

### Vt.319

### (citing

### V.R.C.P.56(a)).Thus,

## ifhe

### is

### wrong,and

## BFFI’ssuggested

### factsare

### material,

### Mr.

### Nye’smotionfails.1

### Attheheart

### ofthisdisputeisthequestion

### ofwhether,attheend

### ofthe

### originalleaseterm,

## BFFI’stenancybecamemonth-to-monthorremained

### year-to-year.

### Thisis

### criticalquestion;the

### answerdictates

### howmuch

### noticewasrequiredtoterminate

## BFFI’stenancy.

### Thewrittenlease

### is

### far

### fromunambiguousonthispoint.

### Itmakesno

### provisionfortermination

### fornocause,

### except

### inthecase

### ofholdovertenancy;

### insuchcase,

### onlythirty

### days’noticeisrequired.Italsocontemplatestermination

### intheevent

### ofsale

### oftheproperty;

### inthatevent,

### sixmonths’

### noticeisrequired.

### Andmost

### importantly,

### whileitprovides

### forrenewal,

### howrenewal

### occurs,andwhetherand

### howthat

### isdifferentfrom

### “holdingover,”are

### leftcompletelytothe

### imagination

### ofthereader.

### Moreover,the

### circumstancessurroundingthe

### making

### oftheagreement

### castdoubtontheinterpretation

### ofthelease.See

### Kippv.

### Est.

### ofChips,169

### Vt.102,107

### (1999)(court

### mayconsider

### limitedextrinsiccircumstancessurroundingthe

### making

### ofagreementtodetermine

### ambiguity).Thus,reasonablepeople

### could

### differasThecourtnotesthatevenhadMr.Nyemethisinitialburdenonthisissue,

### BFFIhasalludedtocompetentevidencethat,viewedinthelightmostfavorabletoBFFI,issufficienttomeetanyburdenitthenmightbear.SeeCarrv.PeerlessIns.

### Ca,168Vt.465,476(1998);seealsoGatesv.MackMoldingC0,,2022

### VT24,1]l3,216Vt.379(“Indeterminingtheexistenceofgenuineissuesofmaterialfact,courtsmustacceptastruetheallegationsmadeinoppositiontothemotionforsummaryjudgment,solongastheyaresupportedbyaffidavitsorotherevidentiarymaterial”)(quotationomitted).DecisiononMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentPageof22—CV—00547EricNye,IIeta1v.BoissonneaultFamilyFarm,Inc.Vermont

### SupgrioroCourt0124FFrankh/n?J{fittotheinterpretation

### oftheleaseonthisimportantquestion.Inshort,thelease

### isambiguousonthe

### pointthat

### iscentraltothiscase.

### Thedetermination,asmatter

### oflaw,thatthelease

### isambiguousdoesnotendthe

### inquiry;itmeans

### onlythatinterpretation

### oftheleaseisquestion

### offact.See,e.

## g,Constr.

### Drilling,Inc.v.

### Eng'rsConstr.,

### Inc.,2020

## VT38,1112,

### 212

### Vt.323.

### Thus,itremainsopento

### Mr.

### Nyeto

### showthatontheundisputed

### facts,noreasonableperson

### couldconcludethattheleasearrangement

### was

### anythingotherthan

### month-to-monthaftertheend

### ofthe

### originalone-yearleaseterm.

### Hehasmadeno

### effort

### inthisregard,

### however.

### Thus,hehas

### failedinhis

### initialburdenonthismotion.

### See

### Couturev.

### Trainer,2017

## VT73,119,

### 205

### Vt.319

### (quoting

### V.R.C.P.56(a))

## (Aparty

### movingforsummary

### judgmenthastheburden

### ofshowing“thatthere

### isnogenuinedisputeasto

### anymaterial

### fact.”).

### Thisfailure

### relieves

### BFFIofany

### obligationtocome

### forward

### withanyevidenceatthistime.See

### Grossv.

### Turner,2018

## VT80,118,208

### Vt.112

### (“Onceclaimis

### challenged

### byproperlysupported

### motion

### forsummary

### judgment,the

### nonmovingpartymustcome

### forward

### withadmissible

### evidencetoraisedispute

### regardingthe

### facts”).Nevertheless,

### BFFIhas

### sufficientlyshownthatthere

### isatleastgenuinedisputeonthisissue.

### Asnoted

### above,the

### circumstancessurroundingthe

### making

### oftheagreementcastdoubtonthe

### parties’intentions

### concerningthemanner

### ofrenewal,theleaseterm

### insuchevent,andtheamount

### ofnoticerequired.

### Moreover,theirsubsequentcourse

### ofperformanceatsuggeststhatbothpartiesunderstoodthattheleasearrangementremained

### year-to-yearafterthe

### expiration

### ofthe

### originalterm.See

### Mgmt.

### VL,Inc.v.

### John,2015

## VT61,1113,199

### Vt.202(court

### mayconsiderevidence

### ofparties’performanceunderambiguous

### contractas

### extrinsicevidence

### ofintent).

### This,

### ofcourse,

### is

### criticalquestion.

### Our

### Courthas

### heldthat

### “theagreementto

### payannualrent,thepaymentsmadepursuanttothatagreementandthecharacter

### oftheleaseagreement

### convertedtheestateto

### year-to-yeartenancy,

### entitlingbothpartiesto

### sixmonth

### notice

### priorto

### termination.”

### Prescottv.

### Smits,146

### Vt.430,433

### (1985).

### Significantly,inthatcase,the

### Courtobservedthat

### “the

### year-to-yeartenancydoctrine

### ismore

### readilyapplicableinan

### agriculturallease

### setting.”Id.

### Here,eventhoughnot

### properly

### challenged

### byMr.

### Nye’spaperstodoso,

### BFFIhascome

### forward

### withevidence

### sufficienttosupport

### findingsthat

### wouldbringthiscase

### squarely

### withinthose

### teachings.

### Clearly,Mr.

### Nyedidnot

### provide

### sixmonths’notice;nor

### didthe

### noticethathe

### did

### givelooktotheend

### oftheleaseyear.See

### Maniattyv.

### Carroll,114

### Vt.168,169

### (1945)

### (“Inordertoterminate

### tenancy

### from

### yearto

### year,soastoentitlethelessortopossession,

### sixmonths'

### notice

### ofthetermination

### ofthe

### tenancy,and

### lookingtotheend

### ofthe

### year,is

### necessary”).Thus,thereisatthe

### veryleastgenuinedisputeasDecisiononMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentPageof22—CV—00547EricNye,IIeta1v.BoissonneaultFamilyFarm,Inc.VermontSuperiorCourtFiled01/302_4FranklmmttoWhetherthe

### noticehe

### did

### givewas

### sufficienttosupport

### his

### claimfor

### eviction.SeeVermont

### SmallBusiness

### Devel.Corp.v.

### FifthSon

### Corp,2013

## VT7,1115,193

### Vt.85(requirement

### of“punctiliouscompliance”

### withnotice

### provisionsapplies

### innonresidential

### context).

## ORDERThecourtdeniesthemotion.

### Whilethe

### factson

### which

### Plaintiffreliesareundisputed,

### theyarenot

### allthe

### factsmaterialtothedetermination

### ofthisquestion.

### Thelease

### isambiguous;whetherand

### how

### itmayberenewed,as

### distinguishedfrom

### “holding

### over,”doesnotappearonthe

### face

### ofthedocument.

### Theparties’course

### ofdealinginjectsgreater

### uncertainty,

### suggestingeitherthatthepartiesintendedthat

### whatoccurredhere

### was

### renewalratherthan

### “holding

### over”orthattheparties

### mayhaveagreed

### orallyto

### modifythelease.

### Asresult,there

### isatleastgenuinedisputeastowhether,afterthe

### expiration

### ofthe

### originalleaseterm,thelease

### was

### year-to-yearormonth-to-month;

## iftheformer,then

### Plaintiff’notice

### ofterminationwas

### defective,and

### willnotsupport

### eviction,While

## ifthelatter,the

### noticewas

### effective,and

### Plaintiffisentitled

### judgment

### forpossession.

### Thesearequestionsthatmustbe

### resolved

### bythe

### jury.Theclerk

### willschedule

### pretrialconference.

### Electronicallysignedpursuantto

### V.R.E.F.9(d):1/30/2024

### 3:38

### PMmuelar311?)

### Court

### JudgeDecisiononMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentPageof22—CV—00547EricNye,IIetalv.BoissonneaultFamilyFarm,Inc.