Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Citation
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Parent Document
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-04-13
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8209871/andrus-v-dunbar/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
- Andrus v. Dunbar, 178 Vt. 554 (2005)
Full Text
738 chars¶ 3. On June 17, 2003, landlord filed an eviction action, asking for a writ of possession and direct and consequential damages, including back rent and associated costs. Tenant represented himself in *555the action, but consulted Legal Services Law Line. Pursuant to their advice, he filed a V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on July 7, 2003, claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over the matter due to insufficiency of the notices to quit. Tenant argued that the first notice, dated May 1, was insufficient because it did not contain the reason for termination of the tenancy. Tenant further argued that the June 12 notice could not provide jurisdiction because landlord filed for eviction before the termination date of July 5.