Court Opinion

ID: 9910396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 16:13:11.940371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:38.854583
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
                                                                                                 Filed 09/12 23
                                                                                               Chittenden nit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT                         £9      £1.                    CIVIL DIVISION
Chittenden Unit                                                            Case No. 23-CV-01962
175 Main Street, PO BOX 187
Burlington VT 05402
802-863-3467                                      Eﬁ
WWW.vermontjudiciary.org

                   Handy's Hotels and Rentals LLC v. Bianca Walton

                           ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title:         Motion to Dismiss; Motion for Writ of Possession ; (Motion: 4; 3)
Filer:         Bianca Walton; Handy's Hotels and Rentals LLC
Filed Date:    August 10, 2023; August 22, 2023

       This is an eviction action involving Section 8 housing. Defendant moves to

dismiss for lack of a notice pursuant to the federal Violence Against Women Act

(VAWA). The federal regulations provide that tenants in Section 8 housing must be

given a notice about their VAWA rights at various times, including “[w]ith any

notiﬁcation of eviction or notiﬁcation of termination of assistance. . .” 24 C.F.R. §

5.2005(a)(2)(3). There is no dispute that no such notice was provided by landlord with
the eviction notice here. Nor is there any evidence that the housing authority provided

such a notice.

       Landlord responds that the duty falls on the housing authority, not the landlord.

The regulations are admittedly convoluted and could use a plain English rewrite. The

issue is Who constitutes the “covered housing provider” here.               Ll. § 5.2005(a)(1).
Landlord notes that the regulation deﬁnes that term as including whatever person or

entity “has responsibility for the administration and/ or oversight of VAWA protections”
and includes housing authorities as well as property owners. Id. § 5.20031. It goes on to

argue that “responsible entity” is the housing authority for the type of Section 8 program

at issue here, although it is the property owner for some other programs. Id. § 5.100.

However, the term “responsible entity” is not used in Section 5.2005. Even if one reads

it into that section’s reference to “the individual or entity that has responsibility,” it

makes no sense to say that this particular duty rests with the housing authority. To send

the VAWA notice ““[w]ith any notification of eviction” one must be the person or entity

sending the notification of eviction. It is the property owner who did that here, not the

housing authority. Id. § 5.2005(a)(2)(3). The duty must fall to that entity. This is

consistent with the provision of the regulations stating that “[f]or any of the covered

housing programs, it is possible that there may be more than one covered housing

provider; that is, depending upon the VAWA duty or responsibility to be performed by

a covered housing provider, the covered housing provider may not always be the same

individual or entity.” Id. § 5.2003 (emphasis added)

                                                        Order

        The motion is granted. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The motion for

possession is moot.

Electronically signed on September 12, 2023 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).

1 Landlord cites Section 5.100 for this provision, but it is not found there. It appears at Section 5.2003.

                                                                                                              2