Sweet v. Roy, 801 A.2d 694 (2002)

Citation: Sweet v. Roy, 801 A.2d 694 (2002)
Parent Document: Sweet v. Roy, 801 A.2d 694 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2002-04-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2320480/sweet-v-roy/ ↗

Full Text

1,443 chars

Defendants argued that plaintiff was not protected by the Act because she had never been accepted as a tenant. The court rejected this argument, ruling that plaintiff was a resident of the park and was entitled to the protections of the Act as a matter of law, and instructed the jury accordingly. The court dismissed defendants’ counterclaims for foreclosure of lien, ejectment, and trespass, dismissed plaintiffs claims based on equitable estoppel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and dismissed plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief as unripe. The case was then submitted to the jury on special interrogatories, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. The jury found that Leon Roy did attempt “to evict plaintiff by force or other self-help means,” but found that Marcien Roy was not liable for the same conduct. In addition, the jury found that Leon Roy “wilfully caused, directly or indirectly, the interruption or termination” of plaintiffs utility service, but found that Marcien Roy did not do the same. The jury awarded plaintiff $10,000 compensatory damages against Leon and the trust. It also found that both Marcien and Leon Roy “acted recklessly and in wanton disregard of plaintiffs rights” and awarded $100,000 punitive damages against Leon, Marcien, and the trust. The jury was precluded from considering defendants’ counterclaim for slander because it found for plaintiff on the illegal eviction claim.

Other Sections in This Document (207)

Full Text