Section 2

Citation: Section 2
Parent Document: Highgate Housing Limited Partnership v. Macaulay-Fisher (2015)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2015-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489499/highgate-housing-limited-partne... ↗

Full Text

1,104 chars

Despite having this information about annualized income, Plaintiff’s manager did not
complete processing the Interim Recertification or send a notice of an amount of rent due. At
this point, Plaintiff had the information about Joshua’s income verified by his employer, and it
showed that his income was too high to qualify for a subsidy. Under 7-11(F)(1), (2)(a) and (c),
Plaintiff had sufficient information to make an Interim Certification that Defendants no longer
qualified for a subsidy as of March 1, 2015. It could have given notice of the market rent due for
March, April, May, and June and if such rent was not paid within 30 days, it could have
proceeded with eviction. Lease at ¶ 16(b). It did not act on that information: it did not give
notice that would have supported eviction based on nonpayment of an amount determined
retroactively due to a legitimate delay under 7-11(F)(1), (2)(a) and (c). It also gave no 30-day
notice of a new amount of rent to be due at the market rate, which it could have done. Such
notice could have made the new rental amount effective starting August 1, 2014.

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Full Text