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

1,204 chars

¶ 23. I fail to see the ambiguity. 10 V.S.A. § 6237(a)(2) sets forth the general rule that any eviction proceeding requires notice and, in the same sentence, indicates that exceptions to the general rule exist in § 6237(a)(3) (stating that "except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection" (emphasis added)). Subsection (a)(3) then provides two events that can support immediate eviction proceedings: a "substantial violation of the lease terms" or a "an additional nonpayment of rent occurring within six months of the giving of the notice referred to in subdivision (2) of this subsection." Thus, a park owner may begin eviction proceedings against a leaseholder without notice if the lease is substantially violated or if, within six months of receiving the eviction-proceeding notice under subdivision (2), the leaseholder failed to pay rent for a second time. Because the statute's meaning is plain on its face, I would give effect to this meaning. See Hill v. Conway, 143 Vt. 91, 93, 463 A.2d 232, 233 (1983) ("The [plain meaning] rule provides that when the meaning of a statute is plain on its face it must be enforced according to its terms and there is no need for construction ....").

Other Sections in This Document (408)

Full Text