Court Opinion

ID: 9946819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 15:27:45.229941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:45.218719
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
Orleans Unit

Filed: 42/45/21

CIVIL DIVISION
Case No. 123-7-20 Ossc

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

Orleans Unit

247 Main Street

Newport VT 05855
802-334-3305
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Motin vs. Morin

DECISION ON THE MERITS

This matter came before.the undersigned for a final hearing on the merits on December 9, 2021.
Plaintiff represented himself, and Defendant was represented by Attorney Brice Simon. Plaintiff
Richard Morin and Defendant Matthew Morin are relatives. For clarity, they are identified by their first
names in this decision.

In 2019, Richard leased a parcel of land to Matthew, who intended to use it to grow organic hemp.
Matthew entered into a contract with a third party to supply a specified amount of organic hemp. Prior
to entering the lease, the two Morins walked the land to look it over. Matthew had the opportunity to
assess its suitability for his purpose. He knew that there was not enough acreage to grow all the hemp
that he needed to fulfill his third party contract, and that he would need to grow some hemp on at least
a few acres of other land to meet the requirements of his third party contract.

They entered a written lease for 5 years for a specified portion of Richard’s property described as “Lot
#3 at 10.45 total acres with 9+ acres of planting land available,” and a survey of the lot leased was
attached to the written contract showing it as a field with a specific metes and bounds description. The
contract was for a term of 5 years at $2,500 per year, to be paid annually. Both parties signed the
written lease in May of 2019.

In 2019, Matthew paid the $2,500. Richard tilled the land and Matthew grew hemp.

In 2020, Matthew wanted Richard to do the tilling for him again. Richard did, and while doing so, his
tiller broke and required expensive repairs. The terms of any agreement for tilling are unknown, and
tilling was not included as part of the lease agreement.

Matthew then complained that the amount of acreage suitable for planting was not. the 9+ acres he had
expected. He did not pay the $2,500 and did not grow hemp. He did not fulfill his contract with the
third party. He attributes the reason as insufficient planting land. He considered the lease terminated on
the basis that Richard did not provide him with sufficient planting area under the lease. Matthew
claims that only about % of the land was capable of planting. Richard says the planting area was
“close” to 9 acres, and that the lease was “supposed to” say 9+/- acres. The court finds that the planting
area was “close” to 9 acres, and that Richard substantially met his obligation under the lease. Matthew
has not proved that the amount of planting land was substantially less than 9 acres. Also, since
Matthew himself inspected the land prior to the lease, he has not proved that Richard misrepresented
the amount of land suitable for planting.

Order Page 1 of 2
123-7-20 Ossc Morin vs. Morin

Richard seeks $2,500 for the 2020 rent and $825 for tilling. He agrees now that the lease should be
terminated.

The court finds that Richard is not entitled to $825 for tilling as there was no proof of terms of an
agreement between them for payment for tilling.

The court finds that Richard is entitled to the $2,500 rent for the land for 2020. The evidence that the
court finds credible is that Matthew had full opportunity prior to entering into the lease to determine
that there was sufficient land suitable for his purposes, that the land available for planting was
substantially as described in the lease, that the lease contained no terms of consequences if acreage was
less than a minimum of 9 acres, and that any shortfall was minimal and does not justify Matthew being
released from all obligation under the lease. Richard remained obligated as landlord to honor
Matthew’s right to possession of the land and was unable to use it for any other purpose while the lease
remained in effect. The court cannot find that the land that was leased was unsuitable for the intended
purpose of growing organic hemp, and that Matthew’s inability to meet the requirements of his third
party contract was not due to a breach of the lease agreement on the part of Richard.

Even if the actual acreage was a little under 9 acres, which was not proved, Matthew provided no basis
in law supporting a right to rescind the lease altogether on those grounds.

As a result, the court issues judgment for $2,500.00 for the rent for 2020, and based on the parties’
assent as stated at the hearing, concludes that both parties are released from any further obligation
under the 2019 lease.

Electronically signed pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d) on December 15, 2021 at 7:59 PM.

"Many Whew Sac

Mary if: Teachout
Court Judge

Superi

Benjamin Batchelder
Assistant Judge, Orleans County

Order Page 2 of 2
123-7-20 Ossc Morin vs. Morin