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
1,278 chars¶ 13. The second notice to quit “unequivocally recognized the tenancy as existing,” as explained in Mayo. This is the holding of Morgan v. Powers, an early New York case. 31 N.Y.S. 954, 956 (Gen. Term 1894) (issuing a second notice was “an admission that a tenancy still subsists, and is a waiver of the first notice”); see also 28 Mott Street Co. v. Summit Imp. Corp., 316 N.Y.S.2d 259, 263 (Civ. Ct. 1970). This holding is rooted *557in the principle that the tenant cannot be put in the position of having to speculate on the meaning and legal effect of the landlord’s actions. See Hawaiian Elec. Co. v. DeSantos, 621 P.2d 971, 975 (Haw. 1980) (“[T]echnical accuracy in the wording of a notice [to terminate a tenancy] is not required but the notice must be so certain that it cannot be reasonably misunderstood.”); 123 West 15, LLC v. Lafayette Compton, 2004 WL 1924042, at *1 (N.Y. App. Term July 29, 2004) (per curiam) (unpublished disposition) (noting that “tenant should not be placed in the position of having to parse equivocal notices”); see also Lantz v. Metaxas, 266 N.Y.S.2d 313, 315-16 (Civ. Ct. 1965) (holding that notice of rent increase was not valid when issued during pendency of termination proceeding because it “left the tenant in an equivocal position”).