howes v perez

Termont 	Superior 	Court
Filed 	07/01/26
Washington 	nit
VERMONT 	SUPERIOR 	COURT
Washington 	Unit
65 	State 	Street
Montpelier 	VT 	05602
802-828-2091
CIVIL 	DIVISION
Case 	No. 	26-CV-00968
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Sherry 	Howes 	et 	al 	v. 	Jenny 	Perez
ENTRY 	REGARDING 	MOTION
Title: 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	or 	Strike 	Counterclaims 	(Motion: 	4)
Filer: 	Sarah 	H. 	Nunan
Filed 	Date: 	May 	29, 	2026
The 	motion 	is 	GRANTED.
The 	present 	matter 	is 	an 	ejectment 	proceeding 	that 	Plaintiffs 	Sherry 	and 	Duane 	Howes
began 	on 	March 	17, 	2026. 	On 	March 	18, 	2026, 	Defendant 	Jenny 	Perez 	filed 	an 	answer 	with 	the
Court 	that 	contained 	a 	general 	denial 	and 	several 	affirmative 	defenses. 	On 	April 	16, 	2026
Defendant Perez 	filed 	a 	counter 	claim 	listing 	five 	claims 	but 	providing 	absolutely 	no 	factual
basis 	for 	these 	claims. 	V.R.C.P. 	8(a) 	(requiring 	a 	"a 	short 	and 	plain 	statement 	of the 	claim
showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief").
The 	Court 	held 	an 	initial 	status 	conference 	in 	this 	case 	on 	April 	20, 	2026. 	At 	the 	hearing,
Plaintiffs' 	counsel objected 	to 	the 	counterclaims 	as 	insufficient 	and 	moved 	pursuant 	to 	V.R.C.P.
12(e) 	for 	a 	more 	definite 	statement. 	The 	Court 	agreed 	with 	Plaintiffs 	and 	gave 	Defendant 	30
days 	to 	revise 	her 	counterclaims 	and 	directed 	her 	to 	include 	more 	information 	about 	the 	nature
and 	basis 	for 	her 	counterclaims.
Defendant 	never 	filed 	a 	revised 	counterclaim.
On 	May 	29, 	2026, 	Plaintiffs 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	or 	strike 	pursuant 	to 	V.R.C.P.
12(b)(6) 	and 	(e). 	The 	Court 	has 	given 	Defendant 	30 	days 	to 	respond 	to 	this 	motion, 	but
Defendant 	has 	not 	filed 	a 	response 	to 	this 	motion.
The 	Court 	finds 	that 	Defendant's 	counterclaims 	are 	insufficient 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law. 	While
the 	threshold 	for 	pleadings 	are 	low, 	they 	must 	still 	put 	the 	court 	and 	the 	opposing 	party 	on 	notice
of not 	only 	the 	category 	of claims 	being 	asserted 	but 	the 	nature 	and 	basis 	of the 	claim. 	Bock 	v.
Gold, 	2008 	VT 	81, 	114, 	5. 	In 	this 	case, 	Defendant 	has 	done 	little 	more 	than 	state 	certain
categories 	of claims 	without 	providing 	even 	a 	scintilla 	of factual 	framing.
Defendant 	has 	now 	had 	over 	two 	months 	to 	file 	some 	corrective with 	the 	Court 	or 	explain
the 	sufficiency 	of her 	filing. 	She 	has 	not. 	The 	time 	is 	now 	ripe 	to 	address 	the 	counterclaim.
Under 	Rule 	12(e), 	the 	Court 	is 	authorized 	to 	strike 	any 	pleading 	that 	is 	not 	corrected 	after 	due
notice 	is 	given 	by 	the 	Court. 	V.R.C.P. 	12(e). 	As 	Rule 	12(e) 	notes, 	the 	Court 	may 	strike 	or
"make 	such 	order 	as 	it 	deems 	just." 	Id. 	In 	the 	present 	case, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	given
Defendants 	complete 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Court's 	April 	2011 	Order 	as 	well 	as 	not

responding to Plaintiffs’ May 29th motion to strike, the appropriate action is to strike Defendants’
counterclaims for failure to comply with Rule 8 and with the Court’s April 20th Order.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Counterclaims are struck under V.R.C.P. 12(e),
and the Court will proceed to the bench trial in this matter solely on Plaintiffs’ claims for
damages.
Electronically signed on 7/1/2026 11:13 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)
__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge