pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)

Citation: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Parent Document: pe2 housing v baker, No. 25-cv-5036 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-01
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/20324 ↗

Full Text

1,345 chars

1
Crestmark Inc. v. Tuliper, 2025 WL 2380235, at *1-2 (Vt. Super. Ct., Rut. Civ. Div. July
30, 2025) (Burke, Supr. J.). “[U]nder 9 V.S.A. § 4468, a landlord's right to seek
ejectment under 12 V.S.A. § 4853 does not arise until the tenancy is terminated.” Garcia
v. Birch, 2024 WL 4328592, at *2 (Vt. Super. Ct., Cal. Civ. Div. Aug. 30, 2024)
(Richardson, Supr. J.). “The ejectment statute allows an action for possession where the
former lessee “holds possession of the demised premises without right, after the
termination of the lease.” 12 V.S.A. § 4851. Andrus v. Dunbar, 2005 VT 48, ¶ 10. See
also Sabourin v. Woish, 116 Vt. 385, 387 (1950) (the ejectment statute “provides a
summary remedy for a landlord whose tenant holds over without right after the
determination of the lease”). Pursuant to 9 V.S.A. § 4468, “if the tenant remains in
possession after termination of the rental agreement without the express consent of the
landlord, the landlord may bring an action for possession, damages, and costs under 12
V.S.A. chapter 169, subchapter 3.” The law is abundantly clear, “it is only when the
lessee holds without right after the determination of the lease that a plaintiff can resort
to the remedy.” Sabourin, 116 Vt. at 387. Plaintiff must have terminated the lease and
provided actual notice of the termination to Defendant tenant.

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text