Case Title: Waterbury Feed Co., LLC v. O'Neil

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Waterbury Feed Co., LLC v. O'Neil (2005-268)

2006 VT 126

[Filed 20-Nov-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 126

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-268

                             JANUARY TERM, 2006


  Waterbury Feed Company, LLC          }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
      v.                               }
                                       }         Washington Superior Court
                                       }
  Carol O'Neil                         }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 392-7-03 Wncv

                                                 Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Tenant, Waterbury Feed Company, LLC, appeals from a judgment
  in favor of  landlord, Carol O'Neil.  Following a bench trial, the
  Washington Superior Court denied all of tenant's claims, awarded landlord
  damages for unpaid rent, and granted possession of the disputed commercial
  leasehold to landlord.  On appeal, tenant contests the superior court's
  denial of its claims regarding landlord's obligations: (1) to pay a portion
  of propane costs; (2) to pay a portion of mowing and plowing costs; (3) to
  maintain the roof and foundation to prevent heat loss; (4) to install a
  patio; and (5) not to unreasonably withhold its consent to assignment of
  the lease.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
  consideration.

       ¶  2.  Following are the basic facts.  Additional facts are
  described in the context of each of tenant's claims of error.  In October
  1998, the parties entered into an agreement for tenant to lease a portion
  of landlord's building, an old grist mill, for the purpose of opening and
  operating a restaurant.  The lease entitled tenant to occupy 44.3% of the
  square footage of the building, including the basement and portions of the
  first and second floors.  Additionally, the lease allowed tenant use of a
  stream side area, overlooking a waterfall, where landlord was obligated to
  provide a level grade.  The lease was for an initial five year term, with
  options for three additional five year terms.  The original lease required
  tenant to pay 44.3% of certain costs, including snow removal, mowing and
  heating fuel, among others.  The lease also required landlord to make
  certain improvements to the building to prevent heat loss.

       ¶  3.  Throughout the almost six years tenant leased this space, the
  parties were in dispute about several obligations under the lease. 
  Landlord complained that tenant did not pay rent on time and failed to pay
  rental increases, while tenant complained that landlord did not complete
  improvements as stipulated in the lease.  In an attempt to rectify some of
  the concerns, in April  2000, the parties executed an addendum to the
  lease.  This addendum required landlord to install a patio by May 31, 2000,
  make certain improvements to the property, and cooperate with solutions
  identified by an energy audit.  Unfortunately, this addendum did not
  resolve the ongoing issues.  Landlord never constructed the patio and the
  heat loss problems and heat cost allocation were never resolved to tenant's
  satisfaction.
   
       ¶  4.  On July 17, 2003, tenant filed a complaint seeking damages on
  several grounds.  Landlord counterclaimed for eviction and unpaid and
  underpaid rent.  The trial court ruled against tenant on all claims,
  granted possession to landlord, and ordered tenant to pay $22,283.43 in
  underpaid and unpaid rent.

       ¶  5.  On appeal, tenant claims that it is entitled to damages
  because landlord: (1) did not honor the lease's cost sharing provision with
  regard to heating fuel; (2) did not pay its share of mowing and plowing
  costs; (3) did not properly fix and maintain the premises; (4) failed to
  construct a patio; and (5) unreasonably refused to consent to assignment of
  the lease.  These claims are addressed in turn.

       ¶  6.  We defer to the trial court's findings unless they are
  clearly erroneous, and we uphold the trial court's conclusions as long as
  they are reasonably supported by the findings.  Bull v. Pinkham Eng'g
  Assocs., 170 Vt. 450, 454,