Case Title: Bisson v. Ward

Citation: 160 Vt. 343, 628 A.2d 1256

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
BISSON_V_WARD.92-426; 160 Vt. 343; 628 A.2d 1256


 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                    No. 92-426


 Eugene and Cobelena Bisson                   Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Rutland Superior Court

 Kelly Ward                                   March Term, 1993

 Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

 Timothy W. Shanley, Montpelier, for plaintiffs-appellees
 

 Mary C. Welford and Gail Sophrin, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Rutland, for
 defendant-appellant

 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

GIBSON, J.   Tenant Kelly Ward appeals from a superior court decision, which
 held that landlords Eugene and Cobelena Bisson had violated the statutory
 warranty of habitability.  Tenant claims the court erred by failing to award
 her attorney's fees under the Vermont Residential Rental Agreements Act, 9
 V.S.A. {{ 4451-4468, and by concluding that landlords had not violated the
 Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. {{ 2451-2462.  We agree and reverse.

 In the spring of 1991, the Department of Labor and Industry inspected an
 apartment owned by landlords and reported several violations of state building
 and health codes.  The Department directed landlords to correct these
 conditions.  Soon after the inspection, tenant looked at the apartment.
 Although it had a number of defects, the manager and the maintenance worker
 promised to make necessary repairs.  Tenant made a $300 deposit and moved in
 with her child on May 1, 1991.  Landlords had not received a certificate of
 occupancy at the time that tenant moved in.

 With the assistance of the maintenance worker, tenant prepared a list of the
 repairs that needed to be made.  The maintenance worker told her he would
 forward the list to the owners.  At various times during the next few months,
 tenant requested that the repairs be made but was told that the owners had not
 provided any funds.  Tenant continued to pay the rent for June, July and
 August of 1991, but thereafter withheld payment.

 In October 1991, the Department of Labor and Industry again reported to
 landlords in writing a number of fire and safety hazards, including many
 structural and mechanical deficiencies, and inadequate heating and plumbing
 systems.  The Department also noted that the second-floor bedroom was
 uninhabitable and that there was no smoke detector.  At times during the fall
 and winter, tenant had no hot water and no heat.  The shower leaked
 excessively and could not be used.  Tenant and her daughter used the bathroom
 facilities of neighbors and, when it became too cold to remain in the
 apartment, made arrangements to stay elsewhere.

 Landlords brought an action for possession in October 1991 and moved that
 tenant be ordered to pay rent into the court.  As an affirmative defense,
 tenant asserted a right to withhold rent pursuant to 9 V.S.A. { 4458(a)(1).
 She maintained that she had reported several defects in the apartment and that
 landlords were aware of the condition of the premises but had not made
 repairs.  Tenant also counterclaimed for breach of warranty of habitability
 and for violations of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, requesting all rent paid
 to landlords, damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees, and exemplary
 damages.

 The court held that landlords had violated the warranty of habitability as
 provided in 9 V.S.A. { 4457(a).(FN1)  Because tenant had provided notice of
 noncompliance and landlords had failed to make repairs, the court ruled that
 tenant's lease could not be terminated for withholding the rent.  The court
 also ordered landlords to return all rent monies paid, with interest, and
 dismissed the action for possession.  The court denied tenant's request for
 attorney's fees, however, and found that the evidence did not establish her
 counterclaim under the Consumer Fraud Act.  Tenant appeals the rulings on
 attorney's fees and consumer fraud.

                                    I.

 Tenant argues that, under the Vermont Residential Rental Agreement Act, the
 court must award the tenant attorney's fees when it finds that the landlord
 has violated the obligation to maintain habitable premises. Although the trial
 court found that landlords had breached the implied warranty of habitability
 as well as the statutory warranty of habitability, it concluded, in a separate
 ruling, that attorney's fees were not warranted here because tenant had
 received rent-free housing for a substantial period of time and because its
 decision had already provided ample reasons for these landlords and others to
 comply with their obligation to provide clean, safe housing.  Tenant maintains
 that the statute does not give the court discretion in awarding fees; rather,
 she contends that such an award is mandatory.

 Generally, parties are required to bear their own costs of litigation,
 including attorney's fees.  Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Starling, 143 Vt.
 527, 535,