Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Full Text

859 chars
¶ 14. Landlord urges us to rely on the language of the June 12 notice specifying that the notice is independent of other notices to quit and does not extend or alter the times or obligations in other notices. Landlord asserts that he should be able to send “multiple notices, for multiple infractions and issues; each with different termination dates.” We do not dispute this principle, but find it inapplicable here. As landlord argues, both notices were for nonpayment of rent. The logical reading of the second notice is that landlord did not consider the lease terminated until July 5, and tenant could avoid termination by paying the rent before that date. See 9 V.S.A. § 4467(a) (allowing tenant to avoid termination if tenant pays back rent by the termination date). The language on which landlord relies only creates confusion about landlord’s intent.