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

1,198 chars

The validity of the rent increase is directly relevant to the validity of Plaintiff’s notice of
termination. Despite not being required by statute, the notice did reference Plaintiff’s
statutory right to cure. 12 V.S.A. § 4773. The notice additionally identified an express
amount due in order to cure and noted that the amount would increase by $ 761.00 for
each additional month – the rent as set forth in the notice of rent increase. Again, the
notice explicitly stated the payment necessary to cure the termination for non-payment
and that amount is based on rental payments in light of the rent increase stated in the
November 1, 2024, notice. If that rent increase is unauthorized then the amount of back
rent due, the amount of rent owed going forward, and the amount necessary to cure are
incorrect. It may be that the rent increase notice on November 1, 2024, does not fall
afoul of the LIHTC limitations. However, no evidence was adduced at the rent escrow
hearing on this point. In other words, based on the record before it, the court cannot
find that the rent increase was authorized. And, thus, cannot find that the unpaid rent
balances are based on the actual rent owed by Defendant.

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text