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

1,327 chars

The court properly considered all the facts and circumstances surrounding the interactions between the parties and found no retaliation for the nonrenewal. See Gokey, 154 Vt. at 564, 580 A.2d at 491 (resolution of the defendant's retaliatory *1268 eviction defense requires an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances between the parties). The court considered landlords' actions after the April 1999 notice to vacate in determining whether landlords maintained a retaliatory motive. Important to the trial court was the fact that landlords had completed most of the repairs of which tenants complained. Indeed, landlords removed the one problem affecting health and safetythe debris on the landing/fire escape. Landlords also repaired the windows and showers. Courts that impose the burden on landlords to rebut a retaliatory presumption have held that once repairs are made, the retaliatory eviction defense is removed. See, e.g., Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corp., 463 F.2d 853, 865 (D.C.Cir.1972) (a landlord can rebut retaliatory intent by evidence it has brought premises up to housing code and seeks to evict for some other lawful reason); Cornell v. Dimmick, 342 N.Y.S.2d at 279 (once heating system is put in good working condition, the defense of retaliatory eviction will no longer be available to the tenant).

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text