Order Page 1 of 3
23-CV-03478 Jerry Stearns et al v. Lenore Mondell
Here, rather than expressly choose between the above two lines of cases, the court concludes
that the specific language of this particular notice was not effective to terminate the rental agreement.
The statutes provide that a landlord may terminate a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent by
providing the tenant with “actual notice . . . of the date on which the tenancy will terminate,” and that
the rental agreement will not terminate if the tenant “pays or tenders rent due through the end of the
rental period in which payment is made or tendered.” 9 V.S.A. § 4467(a). In other words, the rule is
that a landlord may terminate a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent by providing the tenant with
actual notice of the date on which the rental agreement will terminate if the tenant does not by then pay
all of the rent due.
In this case, plaintiffs did not provide any notice of such a date. Instead, plaintiffs provided
defendant with a date on which she needed to move out of her apartment, no matter what, which is not
a method of termination that is permitted by statute. The court understands that plaintiffs and defendant
have known each other for a long time, and that this is reflected in the informality of the termination
notice. However, landlords are legally responsible for sending a valid termination notice, and here it
was not sufficient for plaintiffs to send a letter implying that the rental agreement had already been
terminated for nonpayment of rent, and that defendant must vacate by the end of the month or face
eviction proceedings. It was not true that the termination had already occurred, and it was not a
foregone conclusion that defendant needed to vacate by the end of the month. In other words, the basis
for the termination asserted in the notice was not a valid basis for termination under the statute. Andrus
v. Dunbar, 2005 VT 48, ¶ 13, 178 Vt. 554 (mem.).
In deciding the case in this manner, the court is not imposing an informational-disclosure
requirement upon the landlord, nor “writ[ing] additional requirements into an already difficult eviction
process,” as argued by plaintiffs. It is true that discussions about these issues feature in many of the
above-cited cases, e.g., Mills, No. 155-6-97 Bncv; Corse, No. 219-12-15 Oecv. In this case, however,
the court relies less upon these principles than upon the unexceptional view that a termination notice is
only effective if it states a valid statutory basis for termination. Andrus, 2005 VT 48, ¶ 13; Tyler, No.
21-CV-01041. In this case, the letter sent by plaintiffs did not meet that minimum requirement.
For these reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to file a surreply (Motion 4) is granted, and defendant’s
motion to dismiss (Motion 3) is granted.
Electronically signed on Wednesday, January 10, 2024 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).