Case Title: Houle v. Quenneville

Citation: 173 Vt. 80, 787 A.2d 1258

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Houle v. Quenneville (2000-034); 173 Vt. 80; 787 A.2d 1258

[Filed 09-Nov-2001]

       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. 2000-034

Charles and Eileen Houle	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.                                          Washington Superior Court

Kevin Quenneville and Louisa Lewis	         December Term, 2000

Mary Miles Teachout, J.

John F. Nicholls and David H. Gregg of Abare, Nicholls & Associates, P.C., 
  Barre, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

John J. McCullough III, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Montpelier, for 
  Defendants-Appellants.

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Tenants Kevin Quenneville and Louisa Lewis, appeal the
  order granting  landlords Charles and Eileen Houle  possession at the
  expiration of the rental term.  Tenants contend:  (1) landlords' notice of
  nonrenewal of their lease was insufficient because landlords did not
  provide  the Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA) with a contemporaneous
  copy of the notice; (2) the  court failed to properly allocate the burden
  of proof on tenants' retaliatory eviction defense; and (3)  the court erred
  in finding that the evidence was insufficient to support a retaliatory
  eviction.  Because  the requirements for notice to the VSHA do not apply to
  a notice of nonrenewal of a lease and the  court properly found that
  tenants had failed to sustain their burden of proving their affirmative

 

  retaliatory eviction defense, we affirm.  
 
       On November 3, 1998, landlords and tenants executed a written rental
  agreement regarding  the rental of an apartment in Barre, Vermont.  The
  tenancy was subsidized by Section Eight housing  assistance administered by
  the VSHA, and the parties also executed a VSHA owner-occupant lease.  The
  term written in the lease was from November 3, 1998, to October 31, 1998. 
  The court found  that the intended expiration date of the lease was October
  31, 1999.  A provision of the VSHA lease  provided that after the initial
  term "this Lease will renew on a month-to-month basis, unless the  Owner
  [landlord] gives notice to the Tenant of Owner's intent not to renew the
  Lease."

       Tenants took possession of the apartment on or about November 3, 1998. 
  Shortly after taking  occupancy, tenants discovered some problems,
  including an inadequate supply of hot water, a  running toilet, leaking
  shower hose, falling window glazing, and a roll of carpet matting and other 
  debris on the back porch.  Tenants notified landlords of the problems. 
  Landlords did not  immediately correct the problems, and on March 28, 1999,
  tenants mailed a letter to landlords  detailing the infirmities and
  informing landlords that tenants would withhold their rent if landlords 
  did not contact tenants within twenty-four hours to make arrangements to
  resolve the problems.   Upon receiving the note, landlords confronted
  tenants and threatened to bring an action against them  for violating the
  lease by disturbing other tenants.  Landlords stated that they would only
  repair the  toilet and asked tenants to voluntarily terminate the lease. 
  Subsequently, landlords served tenants  with a notice to vacate the
  premises by April 30, 1999, asserting tenants had harassed other tenants in 
  violation of the lease.   Upon delivering the notice, the sheriff changed
  the vacate date to May 8,  1999.  Tenants then contacted the
  Building/Electrical Inspector for the City of Barre complaining  about the
  problems with the apartment.  After inspecting the premises, the inspector
  notified

 

  landlords that the debris on the porch landing constituted a fire hazard
  and must be removed.

       Tenants did not quit the premises on April 30, or May 8, 2000, and
  landlords commenced an  eviction action alleging tenants had violated the
  terms of the VSHA lease by disturbing other tenants.  Tenants answered
  landlords' eviction complaint by denying that they had breached the terms
  of the  rental agreement and raising the affirmative defenses that: (1)
  pursuant to 9 V.S.A. § 4467(b), notice  to terminate tenancy for breach of
  the rental agreement must be served on the tenant at least thirty  days
  before the termination date specified in the notice; and (2) the attempted
  eviction was in  retaliation for tenants' actions in reporting health and
  safety code violations and other lawful activity  by tenants to enforce
  landlords' obligation to maintain premises in a safe and sanitary
  condition.  

       Trial was set for July 7, 1999, but was continued on tenants' motion
  because discovery was  not complete and landlords had recently retained
  counsel.  Trial was rescheduled for October 8,  1999.  On September 24,
  1999, landlords served tenants with a written notice of intent not to renew 
  the lease at its expiration on October 31, 1999.  By this time, landlords
  had repaired many of the  problems with the apartment, including the broken
  windows and shower and removed the carpet  matting and debris from the
  porch.  At a pre-trial conference on September 27, 1999, the parties 
  agreed to a continuance.  The entry order of that date summarizing the
  reason for the continuance  notes: "[tenants'] lease expires at the end of
  October and they have been given notice to leave.  If they  leave, no
  issue.  If not, there will be new issues. [Landlords] will notify court of
  dismissal if [tenants]  leave."

       Tenants did not vacate the apartment, and the matter came to trial on
  December 15, 1999.   The court granted landlords' motion to amend their
  complaint to seek possession based on  nonrenewal of the lease and the fact
  that tenants were holding over after the lease term.  Tenants 

 

  asserted that notwithstanding landlords' withdrawal of their eviction
  claim, the defense of retaliatory  eviction was applicable to landlords'
  claim for possession based on nonrenewal because landlords  still possessed
  a "retaliatory motive" for seeking to terminate tenants' possession of the
  apartment.   Tenants also argued that landlords' September 24, 1999, notice
  of nonrenewal to tenants was  defective because landlords did not provide
  VSHA with a contemporaneous copy of the notice.  

       The court concluded that the September 24, 1999 notice of nonrenewal
  was sufficient  because the VSHA requirement that it receive a copy of
  landlords' notice to tenants is triggered only  when landlords have
  initiated a complaint for eviction or other court action that would
  terminate a  tenancy before the expiration of the lease.  The court also
  concluded that to the extent VSHA  required a contemporaneous notice of a
  court action, in the instant case, the requirement was  satisfied by the
  presence of a VSHA representative at the December 15, 1999 hearing.  The
  court  further determined that landlords, although originally seeking to
  evict tenants in retaliation for  tenants' threat to withhold rent and
  notify authorities about problems with the premises, did not have  a
  retaliatory motive in deciding not to renew tenants' lease.  The court
  emphasized the fact that most  of the repairs had been completed and
  landlords had elected not to proceed with their eviction case,  seeking
  instead possession based on tenants holding over after the expiration of
  the lease term.  

                          I.  Notice of nonrenewal

       Tenants first challenge the court's conclusion that landlords were not
  required to serve VSHA  with a contemporaneous notice of their intent not
  to renew the lease.  Tenants assert that neither  landlords' April 1, 1999
  notice to terminate the tenancy on good cause grounds, nor the September 
  24, 1999 notice of nonrenewal was served on VSHA, and therefore, landlords
  failed to terminate the  tenancy as required under the VSHA lease.  In the
  original eviction action precipitated by the April 

 

  1, 1999 good cause notice to terminate, tenants failed to allege
  insufficiency of the notice based on  failure to serve a contemporaneous
  copy on VSHA.  At trial, tenants' claim regarding failure to serve  a
  contemporaneous notice on VSHA was limited to the September 24, 1999 notice
  of nonrenewal.   Tenants have waived their claim that the April 1, 1999
  notice was insufficient because it was not  served on VSHA.  See In re
  M.M., 159 Vt. 41, 44, 613 A.2d 713, 715 (1992) (failure to raise  arguments
  below amounts to a waiver). 

       Moreover, the court granted landlords' motion to amend its complaint
  to abandon the original  eviction action and to proceed on the action for
  possession based on nonrenewal of the lease.  At  trial, tenants conceded
  that the insufficiency of the earlier notice had no relevance to the case
  in light  of the court's ruling granting the amendment.  Tenants have
  chosen not to appeal that part of the  court's decision, and we will not
  disturb it here.

       Regarding the September 24, 1999 notice of nonrenewal letter, tenants
  argue that it was  invalid because Paragraph 13(b) of the VSHA
  owner-occupant lease unambiguously requires a  landlord to serve tenant and
  VSHA with notice whenever a landlord seeks to terminate a tenancy for  any
  reason.  Paragraph 13 provides, in pertinent part:

    13.  Owner Termination Notice:
    A. Notice of grounds.  The Owner [landlord] must give the Tenant a 
    notice that specifies the grounds for termination of tenancy.  The 
    notice of grounds must be given at or before commencement of the 
    eviction action.  The notice of grounds may be included in or may
    be  combined with any Owner eviction notice to the Tenant.
    B.  State or local eviction notice.  Owner eviction notice means
    notice  to vacate, or a complaint or other initial pleading used
    under State or  local law to commence an eviction action.  The
    Owner must give the  [VS]HA a copy of any Owner eviction notice to
    the Tenant at the  same time the Owner gives notice to the Tenant.

  VSHA Owner-Occupant Lease, Paragraph 13 (emphasis added).  The plain
  meaning of the lease 

 

  provision demonstrates its applicability only to eviction actions or
  actions to remove the tenant and  terminate the tenancy on sufficient
  grounds during the lease term.  In re West, 165 Vt. 445, 450,