tender loving homecare v baldwin, No. 25-cv-5643 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)

Citation: tender loving homecare v baldwin, No. 25-cv-5643 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Parent Document: tender loving homecare v baldwin, No. 25-cv-5643 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2026-02-09
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/20138 ↗

Full Text

1,104 chars

The last argument, which the Court understands to be a new issue is Ms. Baldwin’s
argument that the outstanding balance behind the present writ should be cured by applying an
alleged security deposit of $6,000 to the balance. Setting aside the existence of this alleged
security deposit that is being raised at this late juncture, the problem with Ms. Baldwin’s
argument is that the overall amounts due on the lease exceed the security deposit. Normally, a
Plaintiff seeking a rent escrow order does not have to exhaust or apply the security deposit to the
rent escrow amount. 12 V.S.A. § 4853a; see also 9 V.S.A. § 4461 (noting the various purposes
for which a security deposit may be applied). Additionally, use of a security deposit is not
triggered until after the tenant vacates the dwelling unit. 9 V.S.A. § 4461. For these reasons, the
Court does not find a legal or compelling basis to cancel the rent escrow based on the alleged
security deposit. That said, the deposit remains for any claims for damages that Plaintiff may
make, and it is still subject to the notice provisions of Section 4461.

Other Sections in This Document (21)

Full Text