§ 4461
- Citation
- § 4461
- Parent Document
- In Re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-02-23
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2558043/in-re-soon-kwon/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (53)
- In Re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26 (2011)
- In Re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26 (2011)
- In Re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26 (2011)
- In Re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26 (2011)
- In Re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26 (2011)
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 4461
- § 5009
- § 5009
- § 5009
Full Text
570 chars¶ 13. Landlord further asserts that, even if he failed to provide statutorily compliant notice, the Board and trial court erred in rejecting the sufficiency of “actual and undisputed notice” under the Act. Essentially, landlord’s argument is that because tenants were not prejudiced by noncompliance with the statute and ordinance with respect to the method of giving notice, he should not be denied access to the security deposit. He argues that we have already ruled that actual notice trumps any statutory notice requirements in Hinsdale v. Village of Essex Junction,