State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)

Citation: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Parent Document: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2014-05-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2673207/state-v-hemingway/ ↗

Full Text

1,069 chars

¶ 12.        
We have recently addressed the question of when failure to comply with a
statutory notice requirement renders notice invalid in Vermont.  In In
re Soon Kwon, 2011 VT 26, ¶ 14, 189 Vt. 598, 19 A.3d 139 (mem.), we
held that the question of whether actual notice is sufficient or whether
statutory notice is required is “dependent on the statutory scheme and the
content of the legislation.”  In that case, which arose in the
landlord-tenant context, we noted that the section of the Landlord-Tenant Act
that provided for notice was a “consumer protection provision,” id.
¶ 15, and recognized a “clear rationale in this context for requiring
specific methods of giving notice,” which was that the purpose of the statute
was to bring about the swift return of security deposits.  Id.
¶ 19.  We reasoned that “[t]he required methods of returning the
deposit are likely to cause expeditious receipt; other methods may not.”  Id. 
Consequently, we found that strict compliance with the statutory provision was
necessary to render the notice valid.

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text