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

1,150 chars
¶ 20. By contrast, the provision requiring notice from the tenant serves no similarly important or logical purpose in cases involving latent defects of which the landlord had written notice from someone other than the tenant. In such cases, the statute's notice of noncompliance provision is nothing more than a notice-of-suit requirement. The trial court's attempt to apply the notice provision to this case illustrates the point. The trial court ruled that the Willards' presuit notice satisfied the statute, and their claim was not, therefore, barred on notice grounds like the Poulins' claim. The notice, sent by the Willards' attorney to the partnership's attorney, indicated that it was directed to the partnership and general partner Yvonne Rooney, stated that it was sent on behalf of eight tenant families at Parsons Hill, and requested the recipient to "accept this notice under 9 V.S.A. Section 4458 that the Parsons Hill Partnership and Yvonne Rooney are in breach of their obligations for habitability with regard to the water at the Parsons Hill apartments." The letter makes no attempt to explain the exact nature of the water problem.