Onsite Properties, LLC et al. v. Christine Mead

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denies the plaintiff’s motion to amend. The court concludes that the original no-cause termination notice was defective and that the complaint asserted only claims for ejectment or possession, not an independent breach-of-contract claim. Under Andrus v. Dunbar, the court dismisses the case because the tenancy had not been properly terminated when the action was filed.

Holdings

1. When a tenancy has not been properly terminated before an ejectment or possession action is filed, the court lacks jurisdiction over the action and the ejectment claim must be dismissed.
2. The complaint asserted only ejectment or possession claims, not a separate breach-of-contract claim.
3. The motion to amend was denied because the original complaint contained only a jurisdictionally defective ejectment or possession claim, leaving no surviving claim to support the proposed amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defective termination notice deprived the court of jurisdiction over the original ejectment or possession action.
2. Whether the original complaint asserted a separate breach-of-contract claim that would survive dismissal of the ejectment claim.
3. Whether plaintiffs could amend the complaint to add an eviction claim based on nonpayment of rent after the original action was jurisdictionally defective.

Disposition

dismissed