Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Citation
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Parent Document
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 1990-07-13
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
- Gokey v. Bessette, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
Full Text
904 charsGiven the findings that plaintiff had failed to perform his obligations to defendants and that defendants were justified in withholding their rent payments, the trial court could reasonably conclude that the eviction was retaliatory. See 9 V.S.A. § 4465(a)(2). In urging that he believed he had legal basis for the eviction — the nonpayment of rent — and, consequently, intended no retaliation, plaintiff argues for a subjective test for a retaliatory eviction. While animus or bad motive may properly be considered in evaluating what is “retaliatory,” the statute does not contemplate use of a subjective test. A subjective test would effectively establish such a high burden of proof for tenants that the benefit the Legislature intended to confer would be an illusion. In determining what is and is not retaliatory, the events must speak for themselves. See Smith v. D.C. Rental Accommodations Comm’n,