gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- Citation
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- Parent Document
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2026-02-23
- Original Source
- https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19985 ↗
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- gotlieb v brown, No. 25-cv-5295 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Full Text
469 charsThis court does not believe it has discretion to interpret the Vermont Supreme Court’s “punctilious compliance” mandate any less draconianly. In re Soon Kwon already rejected an actual prejudice requirement. 2011 VT 26, ¶¶ 13-15 (rejecting “landlord's argument . . . that because tenants were not prejudiced by noncompliance with the statute and ordinance with respect to the method of giving notice, he should not be denied access to the security deposit”). III. Order