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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2081593/willard-v-parsons-hill-partnership/ ↗

Full Text

1,474 chars

*320¶ 46. Notwithstanding the Legislature’s adoption of the common-law warranty of habitability in toto, the majority carves out a narrow and unspoken exception for latent defects because it believes the Legislature overlooked the issue. See ante, ¶ 23 (“This oversight is understandable ____”). It draws that conclusion from committee discussion on patent, but not latent, defects. See ante, ¶22. Ultimately, the majority concludes that requiring notice for latent defects “serves no similarly important or logical purpose.” Id. ¶20. In my view, the majority’s rationale involves imperfections that often inhere in legislation. The Legislature rarely predicts every eventuality and covers it in the resulting legislation. See Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶¶ 10-15, 175 Vt. 61, 819 A.2d 727 (construing a statute according to its express terms even though legislative history suggested that the Legislature overlooked the statute’s application in one particular context). In responding to concerns of landlords, the drafting committee may well have gone further than necessary to protect their legitimate interest. These imperfections are not grounds for refusing to apply a clear legislative requirement, however much we may disagree with it. In my view, .the Legislature’s inattention to the question of latent defects, and the RRAA’s consequent imperfection as it relates to those defects, cannot justify the majority’s interpretation of the statutory scheme.

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Full Text