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

1,736 chars
¶ 31. The second claimed ambiguity involves the interplay between § 6237(a)(2) and § 6237(a)(3). The argument is that, because § 6237(a)(2) states that "[p]rior to the commencement of any eviction proceeding" a park owner must provide notice to a leaseholder, notice is required regardless of the violation type. This argument ignores several key components of the statute's plain language. Most important, it reads out the third phrase in § 6237(a)(2), which provides exceptions to the general notice requirement. Id. ("Prior to the commencement of any eviction proceeding, the park owner shall notify the leaseholder by *1227certified or registered mail, except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection...." (emphasis added)). Similarly, this argument disregards the word "additional" in § 6237(a)(3). In that section, the Legislature modified "nonpayment of rent" with the word "additional," id., but omitted the word "additional" when it described a "substantial violation of the lease terms." Id. (listing "an additional nonpayment of rent" (emphasis added)). If all violations required notice, the Legislature would not have used the word "additional" to distinguish between "nonpayment of rent" and "substantial violation of the lease terms." Finally, as described above, the phrase "occurring within six months of the giving of the notice referred to in subdivision (2)" modifies "nonpayment of rent." Combined with the word "additional," the phrase creates distinct procedural protections for leaseholders who fail to pay rent. By ignoring these phrases and their function in the statute, tenant and the majority argue that § 6237 is ambiguous; however, the better course is to give effect to all parts of the statute.