Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)

Citation
lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Parent Document
lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2026-02-09

Full Text

990 chars
As far as this court can tell, our state supreme court has not defined “punctilious” in the
eviction context. It has used the term in three landlord-tenant cases, ruling twice for the tenant.
See Vt. Small Bus. Dev. Corp. v. Fifth Son Corp., 2013 VT 7, ¶ 15 (2013) (“There is no reason to
require less ‘punctilious compliance’ with terms of a lease providing for notice in the
nonresidential context.”); In re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26, ¶ 14. In its single ruling for the
landlord, the court limited and clarified its holding to circumstances not applicable to this case.
Panagiotidis v. Galanis, 2015 VT 134, ¶ 9, 201 Vt. 57 (“We did not intend to suggest that, in a
nonresidential context, we would refuse to accept a form of notice that is at least as effective, and
actually more certain, than that provided in the lease.”) The court concludes that the Vermont
Supreme Court used the word “punctilious” in this context with all the word’s unambiguously
demanding denotation and connotation.