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
- Original Source
- https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19926 ↗
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
- lizabeths pine west v francis, No. 25-cv-4941 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)
Full Text
955 chars2 and when the proposed amendment is not obviously frivolous nor made as a dilatory maneuver in bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion to deny the motion.’”) (quoting Bevins v. King, 143 Vt. 252, 254–55 (1983)). The prejudice to the Francises comes from allowing this eviction proceeding to continue even though Lizabeth’s has failed to fulfill its “punctilious compliance” obligations under Vermont’s Residential Rental Agreements Act. Because 9 V.S.A. § 4467(k) requires a landlord to commence eviction proceedings no later than 60 days from the termination date in the notice, allowing Lizabeth’s to amend its complaint would mean that it could maintain the current eviction proceeding, originally commenced for cause, despite a notice for no cause, by correcting its complaint to match the notice. For this court to allow that maneuver would not comport with the Vermont Supreme Court’s “punctilious compliance” mandate on landlords like Lizabeth’s.