The Vermont Supreme Court has upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of Jennifer Fletcher in a property ejectment case against Kori Coburn. The court's decision, issued on November 6, 2026, confirms Fletcher's ownership of the property in question and her right to evict Coburn. This ruling is significant as it clarifies property rights following a divorce and the terms of property ownership.

The case, identified as Fletcher v. Coburn (Docket No. 26-AP-170), stems from a dispute over real property located in Athens, Vermont. The ruling affects both parties involved, particularly Fletcher, who sought to reclaim her property, and Coburn, who had been living there without a formal lease.

In 2015, Fletcher and Coburn's father, Christopher Coburn, divorced. The divorce settlement awarded Fletcher the property at the center of this dispute while Christopher received another parcel. To balance the division of assets, Christopher agreed to pay Fletcher $25,000. After the divorce, Fletcher did not sell or transfer her interest in the property, which remained occupied by a tenant until their death. Following this, Coburn began living in the property, believing it had been sold to Christopher in 2016, despite lacking any written agreement to support this claim.

In October 2025, Fletcher notified Coburn that she was terminating his tenancy, effective December 31, 2025. Coburn continued to reside in the property, prompting Fletcher to file a complaint for ejectment in February 2026. The civil division held a hearing in April 2026, where it found in favor of Fletcher, leading to Coburn's appeal.

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating, "The trial court’s finding that plaintiff owned the property was not clearly erroneous." The court noted that the trial court had credible evidence supporting Fletcher's ownership, including her testimony and the divorce decree, which was recorded in town land records. The justices emphasized that the trial court's role is to assess witness credibility and weigh evidence.

During the appeal, Coburn argued that he had evidence suggesting that Christopher Coburn had purchased the property, including a bank loan application indicating the funds were for "payoff ex-wife." However, the court found that this evidence did not establish a sale and noted that Coburn had not presented any formal documentation to support his claim.

The court ruled, "The evidence supports the court’s finding that plaintiff owned the property and therefore had the right to possession." It also stated that Coburn did not challenge the court's findings regarding the termination of any lease that may have existed. As a result, the court saw no reason to overturn the lower court's decision.

This ruling has implications for property rights and tenancy disputes in Vermont. It reinforces the importance of clear documentation in property transactions and the necessity for tenants to have formal agreements to avoid eviction. The court's decision may influence similar cases where property ownership and tenancy rights are contested.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear if Coburn will seek further legal recourse. The court's ruling can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details regarding any such plans were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases currently pending that could impact this ruling.