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

1,224 chars

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.

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text