Shires Housing, Inc. v. Carolyn S. Brown and William A. Shepard, II, 172 A.3d 1215 (2017)

Citation: Shires Housing, Inc. v. Carolyn S. Brown and William A. Shepard, II, 172 A.3d 1215 (2017)
Parent Document: Shires Housing, Inc. v. Carolyn S. Brown and William A. Shepard, II, 172 A.3d 1215 (2017)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2017-07-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489424/shires-housing-inc-v-carolyn-s-... ↗

Full Text

921 chars

¶ 14. In short, it is unclear from the language of the statute itself whether the Legislature intended to exempt substantial lease violations from the notice requirement or if instead the Legislature intended the statute to require no notice after a second substantial lease violation within six months of a first substantial lease violation. Even if landlord is correct that the Legislature intended to create a general rule in § 6237(a)(2) -notice is required-and then lay out exceptions to that rule in § 6237(a)(3) -notice is not required-the statute is sufficiently confusing to render it susceptible to more than one interpretation. Because we conclude that the statute is ambiguous, and because the agency charged with enforcing the statute has attempted to define it, we must "seek out the interpretation intended by the statute's drafters." See In re Agency of Admin., 141 Vt. 68, 76, 444 A.2d 1349, 1352 (1982).

Other Sections in This Document (408)

Full Text