Ballinallee Properties Llc V Shawn Mateo

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court evaluated plaintiffs' motion to amend the final judgment order to correctly identify the property's two 911 addresses as part of a single parcel under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), finding ample evidence to support the amendment and no abuse of discretion.
• Mateo claimed unfair denial of a jury trial, but the court noted his failure to timely file a demand under V.R.C.P. 38(b), leading to a waiver of his right to a jury trial.
• Mateo's complaints about evidence handling, including hearsay objections, were dismissed as inadequately briefed, with no specific citations provided to support his claims.
• Mateo's motion to recuse the trial judge was denied by the Chief Superior Judge, who found no basis for disqualification beyond a litigant suing the judge, which is insufficient under Vermont rules.
• The court addressed Mateo's counterclaims and determined they were without merit, having considered and rejected each in its decision.

Holdings

• Mateo's argument that he was unfairly denied a jury trial was rejected, as the record confirmed he did not timely request a jury trial under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) and (d).
• The court dismissed Mateo's claims about evidentiary rulings, stating he failed to properly object to evidence on hearsay grounds or provide record citations, and noted his arguments were inadequately briefed.
• The court affirmed the trial judge's denial of Mateo's motion to recuse, citing that suing a judge does not automatically require recusal and no compelling grounds were shown.
• Mateo's claim about insufficient time to present his case was rejected, as the trial court exercised reasonable control over proceedings and both parties had a fair opportunity.
• The court rejected Mateo's argument that the trial court violated his due process rights by amending the judgment to include 2323 U.S. Route 7, finding the amendment was a correction of clerical error and supported by evidence showing the property was one unsubdivided parcel.
• The court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiffs Patrick Gray and Ballinallee Properties, LLC, concluding that plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the property and that Mateo owed $39,000 in unpaid rent.
• The court found no merit in Mateo's claim that the trial court failed to hear his counterclaims, noting the record showed the court considered and rejected each counterclaim in its decision.
• Mateo's attempt to relitigate claims (e.g., harassment, property purchase) and his assertion that Gray's evidence was inadmissible were rejected, as the trial court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

Remedies

• The court granted plaintiffs Patrick Gray and Ballinallee Properties, LLC a writ of possession to reclaim the property from Shawn Mateo.
• The court awarded plaintiffs $39,000 in damages for unpaid rent, concluding that Mateo owed this amount under breach of contract.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court corrected clerical errors in its judgment under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which permits amendments for clerical mistakes or errors arising from oversight or omission. This correction was necessary to accurately describe the subject property in the writ of possession.
• The court applied the principle of substance over form in determining that the property with two 911 addresses (2323 and 2325 U.S. Route 7) constituted a single, unsubdivided parcel. This allowed plaintiffs to seek possession of the entire property despite the dual addresses.

Precedent Name

• Warner v. Warner
• Johnson v. Johnson
• Cabot v. Cabot
• In re S.B.L.
• In re Vt. Sup. Ct. Admin. Directive No. 17

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• The contract required regular rent payments. Mateo ceased payments in January 2024, leading to the court's finding of unpaid rent as a basis for granting possession to plaintiffs.
• The agreement included a purchase option that expired on June 10, 2021, unless extended. Mateo did not exercise this option, which plaintiffs argued was a breach of contract.
• The contract required Mateo to maintain the property in good condition and comply with applicable state and town laws. The court found Mateo failed to meet these obligations, contributing to the breach of contract ruling.
• The agreement prohibited subletting without written consent. Mateo sublet a mobile home on the property to his girlfriend without plaintiffs' approval, which the court deemed a breach.

Cited Statute

• Vermont Rules Of Civil Procedure
• Vermont Rules Of Appellate Procedure
• Vermont Rules Of Evidence

Judge Name

• Paul L. Reiber
• Harold E. Eaton, Jr.
• Nancy J. Waples

Passage Text

• The record shows that the court considered and rejected each counterclaim in its decision.
• The court found that the property was not properly described in its initial order due to oversight and there was ample evidence to show that, while the property had two 911 addresses, it was one lot. This evidence included the notice to quit, which referenced both 911 addresses, and the town's grand list, where the property was listed as one lot.

Damages / Relief Type