Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)

Citation
Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)
Parent Document
Willard v. PARSONS HILL PARTNERSHIP, 2005 VT 69 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2005-08-05

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Full Text

1,304 chars
¶ 18. Although the RRAA does not make any distinction between patent and latent defects, its notice provisions can be logically understood to apply only to patent defects. The notice provision plays an important role in safeguarding the landlord’s rights in cases involving patent defects. These are defects that the tenant is most often in a superior position to discover because of his or her daily use and occupancy of the rented premises — especially if the habitability defect occurs inside an individual rental unit. Examples of such defects include a chronically clogged toilet, leaking or frozen pipes, vermin infestation, lack of heat, and crumbling plaster. See Hilder, 144 Vt. at 155-56, 478 A.2d at 206 (cataloguing defects on which tenant based successful warranty-of-habitability claim). As a practical matter, most landlords do not frequently enter occupied rental units unless they are responding to a tenant’s complaint. See 9 V.S.A. § 4460 (establishing notice and consent requirements that landlord must satisfy before entering tenant’s dwelling). In such cases, the landlord must often rely on notice from a tenant to learn that there is a problem that may materially affect tenant health and safety; these are the cases that present the greatest danger of abuse by dishonest tenants.