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

975 chars

Finally, tenants contend that the court’s finding that the notice of nonrenewal was not retaliatory was clearly erroneous. We will affirm the trial court’s finding of fact “unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and excluding the effect of modifying evidence, a finding is clearly erroneous.” Semprebon v. Semprebon, 157 Vt. 209, 214, 596 A.2d 361, 363 (1991). Tenants insist that the record supports only one finding: that landlords acted with retaliatory intent in serving tenants a notice of nonrenewal in September 1999. In support of their claim, tenants repeatedly prevail on the Court to review the landlords’ actions surrounding the notice to vacate during the lease term in April 1999. Tenants argue that because the court found that landlords had a retaliatory motive in March and April 1999, they necessarily had that motive almost six months later in late September 1999, when landlords served their notice of nonrenewal.

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text