In this case, the Plaintiff sought ejectment against the Defendants based upon two notices
she provided: 1) for no cause effective on December 31, 2023; and 2) for alleged violations of
the written lease agreement for failing to comply with a material term prohibiting the tenant from
destroying, defacing, damaging or removing the property or from making alterations or
improvements without the landlord’s consent. The Plaintiff filed the ejectment complaint on
December 22, 2023. In its oral findings and conclusions from January 2, 2025, the Court held
that because the complaint was filed before the termination date for no cause on December 31st,
it could not support a claim of ejectment. The trial court looked to 9 V.S.A. § 4467(k) for
support, which states, “[A] notice to terminate a tenancy shall be insufficient to support a
judgment of eviction unless the proceeding is commenced not later than 60 days from the
termination date set forth in the notice.” The trial court found that Plaintiff’s no cause action
filed 9 days before the tenancy termination date for no cause was too soon. Therefore, the trial
court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to judgment of eviction if the tenancy had not yet been
terminated as of the date the complaint was filed. The trial court looked to Andrus v. Dunbar as
further support requiring a prior and effective notice of termination by the landlord. 2005 VT 48,
178 Vt. 554. The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that as the no cause eviction count was
identified as anticipatory, it was properly filed even if nine days early.