Case Title: L'Esperance v. Benware

Citation: 175 Vt. 292, 2003 VT 43, 830 A.2d 675

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
L'Esperance v. Benware (2001-404); 175 Vt. 292; 830 A.2d 675

2003 VT 43

[Filed 2-May-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 43

                                No. 2001-404

  Cheryl L'Esperance, Matthew and Kyle                Supreme Court
  L'Esperance, Scott and Daryl Simpson
                                                      On Appeal from
       v.                                             Rutland Superior Court

  Wayne Benware and Sandra Lebo                       June Term, 2002

  Richard W. Norton, J.

       Mary C. Welford of Witten Woolmington Bongartz Campbell & Boepple,
  P.C., Manchester Center, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

       William J. Blake of Kiel Ellis & Boxer, Springfield, for
  Defendants-Appellants.

       John J. McCullough and Stephen Norman, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.,
  Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae Vermont Tenants, Inc./CVOEO.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse (FN1), Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   In this appeal of a jury verdict awarding
  damages to plaintiff-tenants, defendant-landlord claims (1) the evidence
  was insufficient to support the jury's finding that landlord was negligent
  in failing to provide plaintiff-tenants with safe drinking water; (2) the
  trial court erred in concluding that landlord was liable to
  plaintiff-tenants under the Consumer Fraud Act for renting her property in
  violation of the law; (3) the jury's award of exemplary damages was
  erroneous because it was unsupported by the evidence; and (4) the trial
  court erred in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiffs.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  In February 1996, plaintiff-tenants, Cheryl L'Esperance and her
  four children, Matthew L'Esperance, Kyle L'Esperance, Scott Simpson II, and
  Daryl Simpson began renting a house in Shrewsbury, Vermont from the owner,
  Eva Benware Kinney.(FN2)  Plaintiffs claim they encountered a number of
  problems with the property.  They allege that the heat was inadequate, the
  water was not working properly, the foundation appeared to be
  deteriorating, and the heat and electric bills were extraordinarily high. 
  In March 1996, plaintiffs became ill with cramping, diarrhea, and vomiting. 
  At the advice of her doctor, Cheryl L'Esperance contacted the Shrewsbury
  town health officer to have the water tested for contamination.  

       ¶  3.  In April, the town health officer sent a water sample taken
  from the house to the Vermont Department of Health laboratory.  The sample
  was found to contain E. coli bacteria.  The town health officer requested
  the Vermont Department of Labor and Industry to inspect the property.  On
  April 26, 1996, a Department inspector did so and ordered that the house be
  vacated by April 29 due to electrical problems and structural deficiencies,
  including an unsound foundation, a cracked and unsupported carrier beam,
  and the potential failure of a support column.  Cheryl L'Esperance moved
  into a motel with her children until they could find other housing.  In
  early May 1996, plaintiffs were treated for giardiasis.
   
       ¶  4.  In July 1998, plaintiffs filed a complaint against landlord
  alleging: (1) violation of the rental housing health code; (2) breach of
  express and implied warranties of habitability; (3) consumer fraud; (4)
  breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (5) intentional infliction of
  emotional distress; (6) common law fraud; (7) failure to return a security
  deposit; and (8) negligence.  Prior to trial, the court granted summary
  judgment for landlord on the rental housing health code and warranty of
  habitability claims.  The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on
  the claims of landlord=s liability for violation of the consumer fraud act
  and for failure to return a security deposit, but left for trial the issue
  of damages on each claim.  Before trial, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
  their claims for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional
  infliction of emotional distress, and common law fraud.

       ¶  5.  The remaining claims regarding negligence, and damages for
  consumer fraud and failure to return a security deposit, were tried before
  a jury in June 2001.  The jury found landlord negligent, and awarded
  plaintiffs a total of $5000 in compensatory damages.  With respect to the
  consumer fraud claim, the jury awarded plaintiffs $1200 in compensatory
  damages and $3600 in exemplary damages.  The jury found that the value of
  the security deposit was $400, but declined to award any damages for
  willfully withholding the deposit.

       ¶  6.  Landlord filed post-trial motions requesting the court to
  grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to V.R.C.P. 50(b) or to
  grant a new trial or to alter or amend judgment pursuant to V.R.C.P. 59. 
  The court denied these motions.  Following the court's denial of landlord's
  motions, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs' petition for attorney's
  fees, costs and interest.  On September 28, 2001, the court awarded
  plaintiffs $33,315.69 in attorney's fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest. 
  A final judgment order of $43,736.69, based on the jury's verdict,
  post-judgment attorney's fees, and the court's September 28 award, was
  entered on October 23, 2001.
   
       ¶  7.  On appeal, landlord asserts: (1) that the jury verdict on
  plaintiffs' negligence claim is not supported by the evidence and the trial
  court committed reversible error in denying landlord a judgment
  notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively granting landlord a new trial;
  (2) that the trial court committed reversible error by granting judgment in
  favor of plaintiffs on liability under the Consumer Fraud Act instead of
  submitting the issue to the jury; (3) that the jury verdict on exemplary
  damages under the Consumer Fraud Act was unsupported by the evidence; and
  (4) that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiffs
  because plaintiffs' entitlement to the fees is limited to the consumer
  fraud claim and the trial court failed to reduce the fee award based on
  plaintiffs' "limited success" in the case.  We address each argument in
  turn.

                            I.  Negligence Claim

       ¶  8.  Landlord's assertion of error with respect to plaintiffs'
  negligence claim is predicated on the argument that - even viewing evidence
  in the light most favorable to plaintiffs - there was insufficient evidence
  to fairly and reasonably support a jury verdict that landlord had breached
  her duty to provide a safe and potable water supply and that the breach was
  the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiffs.  We disagree.

       ¶  9.  On appeal, we must determine whether the "result reached by
  the jury is sound in law on the evidence produced."  Murphy v. Stowe Club
  Highlands, 171 Vt. 144, 154, 761 A.2d 688, 696 (2000).  Viewing the
  evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and excluding
  the effects of any modifying evidence, this Court will affirm the denial of
  a motion for judgment as a matter of law "if any evidence fairly or
  reasonably supports" the nonmoving party's claim.  Haynes v. Golub Corp.,
  166 Vt. 228, 233,