Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (408)

Full Text

1,338 chars
¶ 17. We also find support for tenant's position in the context of the Legislature's intent. Legislative "intent is most *1222truly derived from a consideration of not only the particular statutory language, but from the entire enactment, its reason, purpose and consequences." Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd., 148 Vt. 47, 50, 527 A.2d 227, 228 (1986). The Legislature that enacted § 6237 found "that 'there is a substantial need for new housing ... for moderate and low-income groups, which need is likely to increase in the future,' " and that " 'most of the new housing available to moderate and low-income groups consists of mobile homes.' " Bisson, 161 Vt. at 14, 632 A.2d at 38 (quoting 1969, No. 291 (Adj. Sess.), § 1(d), (e)). Thus, the Legislature clearly sought to protect mobile home park residents. As we emphasized in Bisson, "an underlying purpose of the Mobile Home Parks Act" is "to give mobile home owners, who can move their homes only at some cost and with some inconvenience, additional protection against arbitrary eviction." Id. at 13-14, 632 A.2d at 38. Providing leaseholders with notice grants them an opportunity to defend against the charges or prepare for their otherwise latent eviction, while granting mobile home renters more protection than mobile home owners would run afoul of the Legislature's intent.