VermontSuperiorCourtFiled06/17/24LamoilleUUnit

## VERMONTSUPERIOR

## COURTLamoille

### Unit154

### MainStreet

### HydePark

## VT05655

### 802-888-3887

### www.vermontjudiciary.org

## CIVILDIVISIONCase

### No.24-CV-01416

### Pine

## HillProperties,

# LLC.v.

### Dee

### Spauldinget

### al

# ENTRYREGARDINGMOTIONTitle:Motionfor

### DefaultJudgment;

### Motionto

### Dismissvs.

### DeeSpaulding;

### (Motion:1;2)

### Filer:

### EverettM.Secor;

### Jennifer

### E.Nelson

### FiledDate:May13,2024;

### May15,2024

### Themotionsare

## DENIED.Thisis

### landlord/tenantmatter

### concerning

### PlaintiffPine

### HillProperties'effortstoterminatethetenancy

### ofDefendantSpaulding.

### Plaintifffiled€a

### motionfordefaultjudgmentbased

### on

### Defendant'sfailuretofileananswerandenternotice

### ofappearance.

### Defendanthas

### nowfiledananswer,

### whichalthough

### technicallyuntimely,has

### notbeenunreasonablydelayed.

### AsDefendantnotes,the

### Courtdisfavorsdefaultjudgmentswherethe

### opposingpartyhascorrecteditsfailuretoanswerandwherethemattercanberesolved

### onthemerits.Desjarlaisv.Gilman,143

### Vt.154,15859(1983).

### Forthesereasons,the

### motionfordefault

### judgmentis

### Denied.Asto

### Defendant'smotiontodismiss,itispremised

### onthefactthatthenoticetoterminatethetenancyreferredto

### dwellingunitlocatedat52

### LowerMainStreet

### West,

### Apartment#46,instead

### ofApartment#33,atthesameaddress.

### Thereisnodisputethat

### Defendantreceivedthenotice

### oftermination,that

### Defendantonlyrentsone

### dwellingunitfrom

### Plaintiff,andthat

### Defendantdid

### notreside

### orrenttheotherunitat

### #46.

### Additionally,therearesomefactsthatindicatethat

### Defendantwasaware

### ofthefactthathertenancywasbeingterminatedandthatthereferenceto

### #46,ratherthan

### #3,was

### scrivenet'serror.

### Courtwillonlygrantthe

### motion

## iftherearenofactsorcircumstancesthat

### wouldgrant

### plaintiffrelief.Colbyv.UmbrellaInc.,2008

## VT20,

### 15.

### Thisisbecausethepurpose

### ofmotiontodismiss

### forfailuretostateclaimis

### "totestthelaw

### oftheclaim,

### notthefacts

### whichsupport

### it."Brighamv.StateofVermont,2005

## VT105,11

### (quotingPowersv.Officeof

### ChildSupport,173

### Vt.390,395(2002)).

### Courtsrarelygrant

### motionstodismiss

### forfailuretostateclaim.Co/by,2008

## VT20,atEntryRegardingMotionPageof24-CV-01416PineHillProperties,

### LLC.v.DeeSpauldingetalEntry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 2

24-CV-01416 Pine Hill Properties, LLC. v. Dee J Spaulding et al 

### ¶ 5; see also Kaplan v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. , 2009 VT 78, ¶ 7. Courts generally disfavor these

motions. Bock v. Gold

, 2008 VT 81, ¶ 4 (“Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are

disfavored and should be rarely granted.”). For these reasons, a party seeking dismissal has a high

burden to show that they are entitled to such an initial ruling. Bock , 2008 VT 81 at ¶ 4.

In this case, Defendant’s motion is premised on the fact that the notice to terminate had the

right address but the wrong apartment number. Plaintiff characterizes this error as a scrivener’s

error and notes that there are facts that show Defendant was not confused by the wrong apartment

number. There are a number of cases where courts have allowed proceedings despite an error when

it is established that the error was harmless, was effectively a typo, and where the error did not sow

substantial confusion. See State v. Cuomo , 2013 VT 101, ¶ 7 (discussing scrivener’s error in the

context of the de facto officer doctrine). In Vermont, courts have long held that a landlord must

have punctilious compliance with all statutory eviction procedures, but the Vermont Supreme Court

has noted that this language must be balanced with both the facts of a case

— whether the tenant

received actual notice and suffered prejudice

— and with the statutory framework. In re Soon Kwon

,

2011 VT 26, ¶¶ 14–16.

In this case, there are disputed facts and an absence of facts. It appears that Tenant

Spaulding received actual notice, but it is not clear if there was any prejudice. It is also not clear if

there was an actual confusion or if the notice was understood for what it was intended, which as a

notice for Defendant Spaulding to terminate her tenancy for the only dwelling unit she was

occupying at the time.

Based on this, dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims at this stage of the case would be inappropriate.

The Court will allow this matter to proceed, and the motion to dismiss is Denied.

ORDER

The motion for default judgment and the motion to dismiss are Denied based on the

contested facts and answer. The Court will schedule this matter for a pre-trial conference at its next

available date to set for trial.

Electronically signed on 6/17/2024 2:08 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________ Daniel Richardson

Superior Court Judge