Case Title: Murray v. Williams

Citation: 169 Vt. 625, 740 A.2d 791

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-08-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Murray v. Williams  (98-492); 169 Vt. 625; 740 A.2d 791

[Filed 2-Aug-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-492

                               JUNE TERM, 1999

James Murray	                    }	APPEALED FROM:
	                            }
	                            }
     v.	                            }	Chittenden Superior Court
	                            }	
Mary Louise Williams	            }
	                            }	DOCKET NO. S0815-98 CnC

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Mary Louise Williams appeals the Chittenden Superior Court's
  judgment of  ejectment in favor of plaintiff James Murray.  On appeal,
  defendant argues that the stipulation  signed by both parties providing
  that defendant pay $677 in unpaid rent and vacate the premises by 
  September 30, 1998, was not a waiver of her right to redeem the tenancy. 
  We affirm.

       Defendant rents an apartment from plaintiff in South Burlington.  In
  June 1998, plaintiff filed  an ejectment proceeding against defendant as a
  result of an $875 rental arrearage.  On September 4,  the parties, both of
  whom were represented by counsel, entered into a stipulation of settlement 
  which provided in part (1) for a judgment of rent due to plaintiff in the
  amount of $677 (2) that  plaintiff waive any other claims for rent, costs,
  interests and fees, and (3) that defendant vacate the  South Burlington
  premises by September 30, 1998, and if she did not do so, that a writ of 
  possession issue at any time on or after October 1, 1998.  The court
  entered judgment based on the  provisions in the stipulation.  

       On September 28, defendant tendered payment of $677 as required under
  the stipulation and  judgment order.  At the same time, she filed a motion
  for discontinuance of the ejectment and for  redemption of the tenancy. 
  She argued that she paid the rental arrearage before a writ of possession 
  issued and, "[n]ow that defendant has paid the full amount conclusively
  determined as owing, the  ejectment action must be discontinued and
  defendant's tenancy redeemed."  The court denied the  motion, ruling that
  defendant negotiated an agreement and "should now live with it."  The court 
  acknowledged the law in Vermont which provides the right to pay a rental
  arrearage and redeem  tenancy until the issuance of a final judgment, see
  12 V.S.A. § 4773, but held that defendant  agreed to vacate the premises by
  a date certain and that the agreement must be held to be an implied  waiver
  of the statutory right to redeem.  A writ of possession issued on October
  6,  in response to  which defendant filed a motion to quash the writ.  The
  motion was denied, but the court, in  response to defendant's subsequent
  request, granted a stay of the writ of possession pending this  appeal.
	
       On appeal defendant argues that, where a property interest is
  involved, a waiver must be  voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.  She
  argues that the stipulation did not waive her statutory  right to redeem. 
  To the contrary, she contends her conduct reveals she understood 

  the stipulation to allow her to pay $677 by September 30 and remain in her
  apartment.  Defendant  asserts that if plaintiff intended that the
  stipulation relinquish her right of redemption, a provision  explicitly
  waiving her right to redeem should have been included in the agreement. 
  She argues that  consistent with Tucker v. Bushway, 166 Vt. 592,