Order Page 2 of 8
24-CV-01091 Kaylee Atwood v. Leland Hill, Jr. et al
U.S.C. §§ 9058(a)(2) and (c). “If the court finds that the landlord is entitled to possession of the premises,
the plaintiff shall have judgment for possession and rents due, damages, and costs.” 12 V.S.A. § 4854. In
this case, the tenants have vacated the property, thus the court must determine whether the plaintiff is
entitled to judgment for rents due, damages, and costs.
Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid rent. Based upon the credible testimony, the court finds that
the defendants paid at total of $5,025 in rent, either through credit or actual monies paid. The defendants
resided at the property for seven months and owed rent in the amount of $1,050 per month. The total
rent defendants were obligated to pay was $7,350. Defendants still owe the plaintiff rent in the amount of
$2,325.
Defendants argue they were not required to pay rent due to habitability issues with the property.
The Vermont Supreme Court in Hilder v. St. Peter, held “in the rental of any residential dwelling unit an
implied warranty exists in the lease, whether oral or written, that the landlord will deliver over and
maintain, throughout the period of the tenancy, premises that are safe, clean and fit for human habitation.”
144 Vt. 150, 159 (1984). This warranty of habitability is codified in Vermont’s Residential Rental
Agreements Act. 9 V.S.A. § 4457(a). In this case, the defendants allege that the leaking roof breach the
warranty of habitability.
When a landlord breaches the warranty of habitability, a tenant’s remedy is limited by the
Residential Rental Agreements Act, which states:
(a) If the landlord fails to comply with the landlord’s obligations for habitability and, after
receiving actual notice of the noncompliance from the tenant, a governmental entity or
a qualified independent inspector, the landlord fails to make repairs within a reasonable
time and the noncompliance materially affects health and safety, the tenant may:
1.withhold the payment of rent for the period of noncompliance;
2.obtain injunctive relief;
3.recover damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
4.terminate the rental agreement on reasonable notice.
(b) Tenant remedies under this section are not available if the noncompliance was caused
by the negligent or deliberate act or omission of the tenant or a person on the premises
with the tenant’s consent.
9 V.S.A. § 4558. Before a tenant can withhold rent for a breach of the warranty of habitability, the tenant
must 1) provide actual notice of the breach to the landlord and 2) allow the landlord a reasonable amount
of time to cure the breach. Id. Actual notice is defined as “receipt of written notice hand-delivered or
mailed to the last known address. A rebuttable presumption that the notice was received three days after
mailing is created if the sending party proves that the notice was sent by first-class or certified U.S. mail.”
9 V.S.A. § 4451(1).
In this case, the court assumes without deciding that the defendants provided actual notice of the
leaking roof to the plaintiff by sending the plaintiff a text message. Ex. A. It is unclear from the evidence,
however, when this text message was sent. The exhibit itself does not have a date the message was sent
and Mr. Hill did not testify when it was sent either. Tenants are allowed to withhold rent for a breach of
the warranty of habitability only after allowing the landlord a reasonable amount of time to cure the
breach. 9 V.S.A. § 4558. Without knowing the date the notice was sent, the court cannot make any
findings whether the landlord was provided sufficient time to cure the breach prior to the defendants