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

1,558 chars
¶ 30. This phantom comma creates an ambiguity where none was present.3 As explained above, the phrase "occurring within six months of the giving of the notice referred to in subdivision (2) of this subsection" is a present participial phrase that modifies the noun "nonpayment." See 10 V.S.A. § 6237(a)(3). To ensure a reader's understanding, a present participial phrase should be placed close to the noun or pronoun it modifies. See Garner, supra, § 10.29(b). A comma before the present participial phrase creates a dangling participial phrase; that is, the phrase is "dangling" because it is unclear what the phrase modifies. Id. § 10.29(c); see also Univ. of Chicago, Chicago Manual of Style § 5.112 (16th ed. 2010) ("A participle that has no syntactical relationship with the nearest subject is called a dangling participle or a dangler. Often, the sentence is illogical ...."). Here, placing a comma between "rent" and "occurring" would create a dangler and result in an ambiguity because it would be unclear whether the phrase modified "substantial violation of the lease terms" or "an additional nonpayment of rent." In other words, the phantom comma produces the very ambiguity that the majority claims already exists. Rather than manufacture an ambiguity out of thin air, I would follow the clear intent of the language: the present participial phrase "occurring within six months of the giving of the notice referred to in subdivision (2) of this subsection" modifies "nonpayment," the closest noun preceding the phrase. Garner, supra, § 10.29(b).