9 V.S.A. § 4465(a). Nonrenewal of a lease can qualify as an action under this statute. Houle v. Quenneville,
173 Vt. 80, 88 (2001). Tenants have the burden of proving a retaliatory eviction. Id. at 90-91. In looking
at all the facts and circumstances between the parties as required by Gokey v. Bessette, 154 Vt. 560, 564
(1990), the court cannot conclude the defendants have met their burden to show the nonrenewal of the
lease was retaliatory. As noted above, the court was unable to make findings regarding when the plaintiff
was put on notice of habitability concerns of the defendants. Similarly, the evidence here showed that the
Order Page 6 of 8
24-CV-01091 Kaylee Atwood v. Leland Hill, Jr. et al
main concern of the plaintiff was non-payment of rent. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing,
the court cannot find the defendants have met their burden to prove the plaintiff failed to renew the lease
because of retaliation. The defendants are not entitled to relief on this claim.
Defendants seek $5,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The four essential elements
a party must prove to establish a prima facie case of intentional inflictions of emotional distress are
“outrageous conduct, done intentionally or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional
distress, resulting in the suffering of extreme emotional distress, actually or proximately caused by the
outrageous conduct.” Sheltra v. Smith, 136 Vt. 472, 476 (1978). Defendants have failed to identify the
plaintiff’s alleged outrageous conduct in this case. More importantly, the defendants failed to present
evidence of their extreme emotional distress at the hearing. Without this requisite evidence, the
defendants cannot meet their burden on this claim. The defendants are not entitled to relief on this claim.
Defendants seek $5,000 for health and safety violations. Specifically, defendants seek damages for
the leaking roof and the plaintiff’s refusal to fix it. Although the defendants proved that they gave notice
of the issue and the plaintiff did not fix it, the defendants did not prove when that notice was sent.
Without that fact established, the defendants cannot meet their burden on this allegation and they are not
entitled to relief on this claim.
Defendants seek triple damages for a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). The purpose
of the CFA is “to protect the public against unfair or deceptive acts or practices and to encourage fair and
honest competition.” Sawyer v. Robson, 2006 VT 136, ¶ 12 (citations and quotations omitted). Landlords
are subject to the requirements of the CFA. Id. at ¶ 13. Under the CFA:
Any consumer who ... sustains damages or injury as a result of any false or fraudulent
representations or practices prohibited by section 2453 of this title ... may sue for
appropriate equitable relief and may sue and recover from the seller, solicitor or other
violator the amount of his damages ....