sterns v. mondell ( 2024 )

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Rutland Unit Case No. 23-CV-03478
83 Center St
Rutland VT 05701
802-775-4394
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Jerry Stearns and Tammy Stearns
Plaintiffs
v.
Lenore Mondell
Defendant
Decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Jerry and Tammy Stearns rented an apartment to defendant Lenore Mondell pursuant
to a verbal month-to-month lease. On July 10, 2023, plaintiffs sent defendant a letter terminating the
rental agreement. It was an informal letter that reflected personal familiarity, and a copy of the letter is
included in an appendix at the end of this opinion. It explained that defendant had failed to pay her rent
for July, and had paid only half her rent for June, and that the amount of overdue rent was $1200.
Plaintiffs requested that defendant “vacate the property” by the end of the month, and informed
defendant that they would “start the process of eviction” if she did not vacate by then. Plaintiffs
thereafter filed this complaint for eviction, and defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
At issue is whether a notice of termination for nonpayment of rent must include information
about the right to cure. A split of authority exists, in which a number of courts have concluded that it
must, e.g., Tyler v. Elberson, No. 21-CV-01041 (Vt. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2021) (Toor, J.); Crompton v.
Ball, No. 686-10-05 Rdcv (Vt. Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2005) (Norton, J.); Mills v. Smart, No. 155-6-97
Bncv (Vt. Super. Ct. Jul. 9, 1997) (Wesley, J.) (citing Halasz v. Kingsbury, No. S502-87 WmC (Vt.
Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 1987)), whereas other courts have concluded that inclusion of the information is
not required, at least in some contexts, e.g., Barnet Tradepost, LLC v. Alden, No. 22-CV-02437, 2022
WL 19002742 (Vt. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2022) (Richardson, J.); Corse v. Pickett, No. 219-12-15 Oecv,
2016 WL 1167745 (Vt. Super. Ct. Feb. 4, 2016) (Tomasi, J.). Both views are supported by persuasive
considerations, including the extent to which information about the right to cure is needed to provide
the tenant with notice of their rights, e.g., Mills, No. 155-6-97 Bncv, and the observation that
information-disclosure requirements are expressly included in other legislative schemes (such as those
pertaining to mobile-home park evictions, nonjudicial foreclosures, and the provision of information
about VAWA occupancy rights), but are not included within the statutory provisions related to notices
of termination of residential rental agreements, e.g., Corse, No. 219-12-15 Oecv.
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).
H. Dickson Corbett
Superior Court Judge
Order Page 2 of 3
23-CV-03478 Jerry Stearns et al v. Lenore Mondell