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

1,039 chars

Moreover, the change of motive defense was raised by the trial court, not the landlords. Their position throughout was that their motive for the eviction was irrelevant *1270 because the lease had expired and tenants were barred from raising retaliatory eviction as a defense. Not surprisingly, the landlords offered no evidence to rebut the case. Although it was the tenants' burden to prove retaliation, they more than made out their prima facie case by the objective facts surrounding the first notice to quit and the subsequent disagreements over repairs. The trial court agreed that the first notice to quit was retaliatory. No other evidence-the fact that repairs were made and the trial date continued-undercut the tenants' case. To the extent the court's determination that the landlord had no retaliatory motive on September 24th is a finding of fact, it is unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous. Therefore, because the landlords raised no defense to the retaliation, judgment should have been entered for the tenants.

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text