cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)

Citation: cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Parent Document: cook v johnson comm housing, No. 22-cv-3458 (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2025-10-03
Original Source: https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/media/19496 ↗

Full Text

1,082 chars

“[E]very lease, regardless of its express conditions, includes an implied warranty of
habitability.” Weiler v. Hooshiari, 2011 VT 16, ¶ 5, 189 Vt. 257 (citation omitted). Under this
implied warranty, a landlord must “provide and maintain ‘premises that are safe, clean and fit for
human habitation.’” Id. (quoting Hilder v. St. Peter, 144 Vt. 150, 159, 478 A.2d 202, 208
(1984)). The warranty “covers all latent and patent defects in the essential facilities of the
residential unit,” which means those “facilities vital to the use of the premises for residential
purposes.” Id. (quotation omitted). To sustain a breach of warranty claim, the alleged violation
must affect the “health or safety of the tenant.” Id. ¶ 6 (quotation omitted); see also 9 V.S.A.
§ 4457 (“In any residential rental agreement, the landlord shall be deemed to covenant and
warrant to deliver over and maintain, throughout the period of the tenancy, premises that are
safe, clean, and fit for human habitation and that comply with the requirements of applicable
building, housing, and health regulations.”).

Other Sections in This Document (29)

Full Text