Case Title: State v. Bisson

Citation: 161 Vt. 8, 632 A.2d 34

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_BISSON.92-471; 161 Vt. 8; 632 A.2d 34

[Filed 17-Sep-1993]

 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. 92-471


 State of Vermont Agency of                   Supreme Court
 Development & Community Affairs,
 Department of Housing & Community            On Appeal from
 Affairs and Gladys Rivers, Intervenor        Rutland Superior Court

      v.                                      May Term, 1993

 Eugene & Cobelena Bisson


 Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

 Barbara G. Ripley, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellant

 Brian Sawyer, Vermont Senior Citizens Law Project, Rutland, for
   intervenor-appellant

 Timothy W. Shanley, Montpelier, for defendants-appellees


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   In this appeal, we must determine whether the eviction
 provisions contained in the Vermont Mobile Home Parks Act, 10 V.S.A. {{
 6201-6243, and specifically { 6237 requiring cause for eviction, apply only
 to persons who own a mobile home and rent a mobile home lot from a park
 owner, or also to those who rent both the mobile home and the lot.  The
 Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs and two individual
 mobile home renters appeal from the superior court's ruling that a recent
 amendment to the Mobile Home Parks Act was intended to make it applicable
 only to mobile home owners who rent a mobile home park lot.  We reverse.

 

      The facts of the case are not in dispute.  For several years, Dale
 Bullock and Gladys Rivers rented (FN1) mobile homes in the Forest Dale Mobile
 Home Park in Brandon, Vermont, before it was purchased by defendants, Eugene
 and Cobelena Bisson.  The Bissons did not offer a lease to either tenant.
 The Town of Brandon cited defendants for rental housing code violations and
 ordered them to make repairs on the rented mobile homes.  Shortly
 thereafter, in January 1992, Mr. Bisson informed those persons renting
 mobile homes from him that they either would have to purchase the mobile
 homes on his terms or vacate the homes after he sold them to third parties.
 Both Mr. Bullock and Ms. Rivers wanted to continue renting the homes.
      In February 1992, defendants sent Mr. Bullock a notice to vacate
 within thirty days, pursuant to 9 V.S.A. { 4467(d) (Landlord and Tenant
 Act; termination of tenancy when property is sold), informing him that the
 mobile home he was renting had been sold to a third party.  Ms. Rivers later
 received a similar notice to vacate.  Defendants concede that neither Mr.
 Bullock nor Ms. Rivers had been delinquent in rent payments or had violated
 any park rule or regulation.
      In March 1992, the Vermont Department of Housing and Community
 Affairs (FN2) filed a complaint seeking (1) a declaration that the Mobile Home
 
 

 Parks Act applies to renters of mobile homes, including Mr. Bullock; and (2)
 an injunction preventing defendants from evicting mobile home renters on
 grounds other than those specified in { 6237.  Shortly thereafter, Ms.
 Rivers was permitted to intervene.  Relying on a recent amendment to the
 Mobile Home Parks Act, the court ruled that the rights of a person who rents
 a mobile home situated in a mobile home park are governed by the Landlord
 and Tenant Act, 9 V.S.A. {{ 4451-4468 (residential rental agreements), and
 12 V.S.A. {{ 4851-4856 (ejectment), not the Mobile Home Parks Act.
      On appeal, plaintiffs argue that { 6237 unambiguously applies to
 renters of mobile homes, that only those provisions in Title 9 and Title 12
 that are consistent with the provisions of the Mobile Home Parks Act apply
 to mobile home renters, and that 9 V.S.A. { 4467(d) does not apply to
 renters of mobile homes because it is inconsistent with { 6237.  We agree
 and, accordingly, reverse the superior court's decision.
      Vermont's Mobile Home Parks Act became law in 1970.  At the center of
 this dispute is { 6237(a) of the Act, which provides that "[a] mobile home
 resident may only be evicted for nonpayment of rent or for a substantial
 violation of the lease terms of the mobile home park, or if there is a
 change in use of the park land or parts thereof or a termination of the
 mobile home park."  By allowing evictions only for cause, this provision is
 a clear exception to the general landlord and tenant law of Vermont, which
 allows evictions without cause in the absence of a written rental agreement.

 

  9 V.S.A. { 4467(c).(FN3) If { 6237 applies to renters of mobile homes as well
 as renters of lots, plaintiffs will prevail.  If not, defendants will
 prevail.
      A "mobile home park resident" is defined as "an individual,
 individuals, or family who occupies a mobile home on a permanent or
 temporary basis in a mobile home park."  10 V.S.A. { 6201(6) (emphasis
 added).  The use of the word "resident," and the use of the words
 "occupies" and "temporary" to define resident, make it clear that { 6237
 applies to renters, as well as to owners, of mobile homes.  See Black's Law
 Dictionary 1079 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "occupy" as, among other things,
 "to hold possession of" and "to tenant"); In re Vermont Nat'l Bank, 157 Vt.
 306, 312, 597 A.2d 317, 320 (1991) (words not defined in statute are to be
 given their plain and ordinary meaning, which can be taken from a
 dictionary).
      Notwithstanding defendants' arguments to the contrary, none of the
 other provisions of the statute, read alone or in conjunction with one
 another, suggest that { 6237 applies only to mobile home owners.(FN4) We find
 little significance in the fact that { 6237 uses the term "mobile home
 resident" rather than "mobile home park resident," or that certain sections
 
 

 of the statute refer to the lease of mobile home lots.  See 10 V.S.A. {{
 6236, 6238, 6242.  Indeed, the selective use of the terms "mobile home
 resident" and "mobile home owner," and the terms "mobile home" and "mobile
 home lot," suggests that the Legislature intended to distinguish the terms.
 See Trombley v. Bellows Falls Union High School Dist. No. 27, ___ Vt. ___,
 ___,