Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text

1,200 chars
Such a construction is consistent with the recommendation of the Restatement which includes nonrenewal of a lease as retaliatory conduct. Restatement (Second) *1264 of the Law of Property § 14.9 (1977) (retaliatory action against a tenant includes refusing to renew a tenancy for a specified term when that term ends). Following the Restatement, the Arizona Court of Appeals has also held that the retaliatory eviction defense extends to summary proceedings instituted at the expiration of a fixed term lease. Van Buren Apartments v. Adams, 145 Ariz. 325, 701 P.2d 583, 586-87 (1984). The Arizona statute at issue in Van Buren specifically prohibits retaliation "by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession." Id. at 584. Although our statute does not expressly apply to actions for possession, as noted above, by not limiting or defining the types of actions prohibited, the prohibition in the Vermont statute necessarily includes actions for possession. Accordingly, we adopt the holding of the Van Buren court. See also Troy Hills Village, Inc. v. Fischler, 122 N.J.Super. 572, 301 A.2d 177, 181 (1971) (statute's retaliatory conduct prohibition includes failure to renew a lease).