Houle v. Quenneville, 787 A.2d 1258 (2001)

Citation: Houle v. Quenneville, 787 A.2d 1258 (2001)
Parent Document: Houle v. Quenneville, 787 A.2d 1258 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2001-11-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2320677/houle-v-quenneville/ ↗

Full Text

1,052 chars

Vermont’s retaliatory eviction statute contemplates that the tenant’s protected activity will precede the landlord’s retaliatory action. 9 V.S.A. § 4465 (landlord may not retaliate against a tenant who has engaged in certain protected activity). In a case like this, where tenants invoke the defense in response to a notice of nonrenewal of a fixed term lease, tenants’ protected activity must precede the notice of nonrenewal and expiration of the lease term. Limiting the availability of the defense to cases where tenants’ protected activity occurs during the lease term protects landlords from “the need to litigate the tenant’s intent to frustrate a nonretaliatory termination by engaging in protected activities subsequent to receipt of the notice of eviction or termination.” Voyager Village Ltd. v. Williams, 444 N.E.2d 1337, 1346 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) (where notice of termination of tenancy precedes the tenant’s engaging in protected activities, retaliatory eviction defense is unavailable). B. Application of the retaliatory eviction defense

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text