Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Citation
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Parent Document
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 1984-06-04
Other Sections in This Document (67)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665 (1984)
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
- § 12
Full Text
1,857 charsIf subsection 1 were applicable to all tenancies, then the lease the plaintiffs and the defendant entered has been terminated by the defendant’s failure to pay the overdue rent after service of the seven-day notice to quit. Such termination would then allow a forcible entry and detainer action to be maintained under section 6001. However, a close examination of 14 M.R.S.A. § 6002, in its entirety, leads us to conclude subsection 1 is limited in scope to termination of tenancies at will. It is clear from reading the first paragraph of section 6002 that the statute is primarily directed to the notice requirements involved in terminating a tenancy at will. The first paragraph is followed by three numbered subsections, the first reducing the notice requirement from thirty to seven days upon the happening of certain specified events; the second addressing the contents of a termination notice pursuant to subsection 1; and the third providing that a breach of the warranty of habitability is an affirmative defense to an action brought by a landlord to terminate a rental agreement on the ground that the tenant is in arrears in the payment of rent. It would lead to an anomalous result to read subsection 1, which modifies the general thirty-day notice requirement contained in the first paragraph, as abrogating the common law rule that nonpayment of rent does not terminate a written lease. Subsection 1 makes no express reference to written leases. Were we to apply this subsection in the manner the plaintiffs advocate, we would be removing the subsection from its restrictive context and implying a legislative intent to change the common law. Although such change might be desirable, we will not interpret a statute as modifying the common law in the absence of clear and explicit language showing such modification or abrogation was intended.