215 summer street v thibodeau, No. 23-cv-5356 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2026)

The Court finds that the trial court did not commit a mistake that requires relief from the
judgment on the Plaintiff’s no cause eviction count. “Punctilious compliance with all statutory
eviction procedures, including notice provision” is required in residential leases. In re Soon
Kwon, 2011 VT 26, ¶ 14, 189 Vt. 598, 19 A.3d 139. When considering the long-standing
Vermont case law of strict compliance with notice requirements under the Residential Rental
Agreements Act, it distinguishes these residential eviction cases that are highly regulated by
statute from other types of litigation such as divorce that permit anticipatory claims. Moreover,
Vermont law is clear that ejectment is a remedy available to the landlord “after the determination
of the lease” and “proceed[s] upon the supposition that the lease is at an end.” Sabourin v. Woish,
116 Vt. 385, 387, 78 A.2d 333 (1950). It is thus resolutely “only when the lessee holds without
right after the determination of the lease that a plaintiff can resort to the remedy.” Id. (emphasis
added). See also In re Parker, 2001 WL 34050702, at *2 (Bankr. D. Vt. Apr. 24, 2001) (noting
that under Vermont law, a landlord seeking to evict a residential tenant must, before
commencing the process, “wait for the termination date in the notice to pass”).