rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)

Citation: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Parent Document: rogers v rogers, No. 25-cv-2185 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-11
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19666 ↗

Full Text

952 chars

Thereafter, Steven filed the pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for eviction,
arguing that Plaintiffs lack a legal basis for the termination of his tenancy because (1) the notice
of termination cites a statute that does not exist ("Title 9 V.S.A. § (e))" and (2) the complaint
alleges that the rental agreement is oral only but cites 9 V.S.A. § 4467(e) in support of a no-
cause eviction, while § 4467(e) applies in the circumstance of written leases only. Steven
suggests that these issues improperly force the tenant to speculate as to what the notice really
might intend to convey. Steven also argues (3) that the notice unlawfully sought to terminate the
tenancy in the middle of a rental period, which is year-to-year (as he sees it). Finally, Steven
argues (4) that the notice is nonsensical insofar as it seeks to terminate the tenancy while at the
same time increasing the amount of rent for the tenancy following the termination date.

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text