While some trial court decisions are to the contrary, see, e.g., Fanning v.
Benoit, No. S0010-92 CnC, 1997 WL 34649588, at *2-3 (July 9, 1997 Vt. Super. Ct.),
the Court concludes that a notice need not contain such information. First, the
relationship between landlords and tenants is highly regulated by statute. The
relevant notice provision here, 9 V.S.A. § 4467, does not contain an express
requirement that the landlord provide information to the tenant regarding the right
to cure. Second, given that the remedy for a defective notice is a severe one --
dismissal of the eviction action, see Andrus v. Dunbar, 2005 VT 48, ¶¶ 9-15, 178 Vt.
554, 555-57 -- the Court does not believe it appropriate to impose, by judicial ruling,
an additional notice requirement that is not set out in the statute. Lastly, the
Legislature has shown that it knows how to require that landlords give tenants
notice of their rights to cure. In the context of mobile home evictions, the
Legislature has instructed landlords to provide tenants with such information in
order to terminate their tenancies. 10 V.S.A. § 6237(a). Its failure to include
similar language in Section 4467 is proof that it did not intend to impose that
requirement for tenancies in general. While the Court believes landlords certainly
should apprise tenants of their right to cure, that is not presently a statutory
requirement. Accordingly, the notice of termination in this case was effective.