rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)

Citation: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Parent Document: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-11
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19666 ↗

Full Text

922 chars

The Vermont Supreme Court has recognized the “principle that the tenant cannot be put
in the position of having to speculate on the meaning and legal effect” of a notice to terminate.
Andrus v. Dunbar, 2005 VT 48, ¶ 13, 178 Vt. 554. That principle manifestly serves the interest
in fairness; it is not an invitation to gamesmanship. The Court has emphasized that “technical
accuracy in the wording of a notice [to terminate a tenancy] is not required but the notice must be
so certain that it cannot be reasonably misunderstood.” Hawaiian Elec. Co. v. DeSantos, 621
P.2d 971, 975 (Haw. 1980) (emphasis added), cited in Andrus, 2005 VT 48, ¶ 13; see also J & K
Tile Co. v. Wright & Morrissey, Inc., 2019 VT 78, ¶ 22, 211 Vt. 179 (more generally rejecting
the old “sporting theory of justice”); First Nat. Bank of Bos. v. Silberdick, 146 Vt. 209, 211
(1985) (same); Castle v. Sherburne Corp., 141 Vt. 157, 167 (1982) (same).

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text