Hedco, Ltd. v. Blanchette, 763 A.2d 639 (2000)

Citation: Hedco, Ltd. v. Blanchette, 763 A.2d 639 (2000)
Parent Document: Hedco, Ltd. v. Blanchette, 763 A.2d 639 (2000)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 2000-12-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5137835/hedco-ltd-v-blanchette/ ↗

Full Text

878 chars

Therefore, the motion justice was correct in dismissing the case because the court’s subject matter jurisdiction was not invoked properly. Because we conclude that the lack of a specified termination date on the notice rendered it insufficient, we need not address defendant’s arguments pertaining to other flaws in the termination notice. Although it satisfied state requirements, the notice here was not effective because it did not satisfy the controlling federal requirements. Therefore, the notice did not provide an adequate basis for initiating an eviction action. Our holding today is in agreement with our previous termination-of-tenaney cases that have required strict compliance with notice requirements. See> e.g., Tate, 622 A.2d at 450 (although notice to quit included the name of landlord’s company, it was ineffective because it did not contain landlord’s name).

Other Sections in This Document (20)

Full Text