Tucker v. Bushway, 95-606
| Decision Date | 10 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-606,95-606 |
| Citation | 689 A.2d 426,166 Vt. 592 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert and Dorothy TUCKER d/b/a Tucker's Mobile Home Park v. Lorenzo and Karen BUSHWAY. |
Before ALLEN, Chief Justice, and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
Defendant tenants own a mobile home located on a lot in a mobile home park owned by plaintiff landlords. Landlords served a notice of termination of tenancy on defendants alleging various violations of the rental agreement, including nonpayment of rent. When tenants did not vacate the premises by the effective date of the notice, landlords brought an action for eviction. On October 18, 1995, the trial court entered judgment for landlords, ordering tenants to deliver possession of the premises and to pay back rent of $1,465.00. On November 17, 1995, tenants paid all rent due plus interest. Tenants then moved for discontinuance of the action pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4773. The trial court denied the tenants' motion for discontinuance. We reverse.
An action for ejectment shall be discontinued if the defendant pays into court the rental payments in arrears, with interest and the costs of suit, "[b]efore final judgment." 12 V.S.A. § 4773. Landlords contend that the date of final judgment was October 18, 1995, because the order issued by the trial court on that date was appealable. Landlords cite to various cases for the proposition that a decision is final if it is appealable. See Titus v. Titus, 128 Vt. 444, 444, 266 A.2d 432, 433 (1970); Beam v. Fish, 105 Vt. 96, 97-98, 163 A. 591, 592 (1933). Thus, landlords argue that tenants, who paid the rental arrears on November 17, failed to make payment before final judgment.
We conclude, however, that the term "final judgment" may assume different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. Compare In re Waterhouse, 125 Vt. 202, 206, 212 A.2d 696, 699 (1965) () with Woodard v. Porter Hosp., Inc., 125 Vt. 264, 265, 214 A.2d 67, 69-70 (1965) (). Because the cases cited by landlords deal with the ability to take an appeal rather than application of 12 V.S.A. § 4773, they are not determinative of the instant case.
We must construe § 4773 in light of its purpose and to avoid an irrational result. See Santi v. Roxbury Town Sch. Dist., 165 Vt. 476, ----, 685 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Canney
...complete the running of the redemption period but was instead merely a ministerial act not stayed by § 362). 18. See Tucker v. Bushway, 166 Vt. 592, 689 A.2d 426, 427 (1996) (the court discontinued an eviction action where the tenants tendered their rent after judgment but before the clerk ......
-
In re Couture, 97-CV-127
...the defendant pays into court the rent in arrear with interest and costs before final judgment. 12 V.S.A. § 4773. In Tucker v. Bushway, 166 Vt. 592, 689 A.2d 426 (1996), the Vermont Supreme Court concluded "that the term `final judgment' may assume different meanings depending on the contex......
-
In re Stoltz
...(a) the date of the issuance of the writ of possession, or (b) the date by which a notice of appeal must be filed." 7. Tucker v. Bushway, 689 A.2d 426, 427 (Vt. 1996) (holding that tenants of a mobile home park had right to redeem lease by paying all back rent after judgment of possession w......
-
In re Stoltz
...know at what point judgment for possession becomes final. The Vermont Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Tucker v. Bushway, ___ Vt. ___, 689 A.2d 426 (1996). The Court held that a judgment for possession does not become final under Vermont law until a writ of possession is issue......