Case Title: Bennington Housing Authority v. Bush

Citation: 2007 VT 60

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Bennington Housing Authority v. Bush (2006-094)

2007 VT 60

[Filed 20-Jul-2007]


  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.


                                 2007 VT 60

                                No. 2006-094


  Bennington Housing Authority                   Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Bennington Superior Court


  Diane Bush and Scott Heaton                    September Term, 2006


  Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

  James J. Cormier, Jr. of Cormier and Cormier, Bennington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  R. Drew Palcsik, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Rutland, for
    Defendants-Appellants.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

         ¶ 1.  SKOGLUND, J.   The Bennington Housing Authority (BHA) brought
  an eviction action against appellants, Diane Bush and Scott Heaton, on the
  ground that they withheld information from their lease application which,
  if known, would have disqualified them as eligible lessees.  Ms. Bush and
  Mr. Heaton appeal the trial court's determination that they committed fraud
  in the inducement and that BHA appropriately exercised its discretion in
  evicting the family when, five years after admitting the family, it
  discovered material inaccuracies in their application concerning one family
  member.  We reverse.  
   
         ¶ 2.  In April of 2000, Ms. Bush, her daughter, and Mr. Heaton were
  homeless, and Ms. Bush was pregnant with triplets.  Ms. Bush filled out an
  application for public housing, listing herself as head of household.  She
  provided information on her income, vehicles, previous landlord, and
  personal references.  In a section entitled "other required information"
  the application asked two questions about criminal history which Ms. Bush
  answered in the negative.  The answers were truthful as to Ms. Bush.  She
  testified that she did not think Mr. Heaton's criminal history was required
  on the form.  She also testified that she asked Mr. Heaton to sign the
  section of the form that authorized the housing authority to do a record
  check on them both.  BHA ran a background check on the couple which
  revealed no criminal history in Vermont.  BHA admitted the family to the
  subsidized housing unit, and the family has lived there since May of 2000. 
  Although there have been one or two termination notices, all complaints
  have been satisfactorily resolved.  The director of BHA testified that the
  family had been tenants in good standing at all times relevant to the
  appeal.

       ¶ 3.  Each year, public-housing tenants are required to affirm in
  writing that they do not exceed the income caps for subsidized housing, and
  that all the answers they gave on the application are true and correct.  In
  2003, BHA upgraded its background checking software, and in 2005, BHA ran a
  new check on Ms. Bush and Mr. Heaton.  The search revealed that Mr. Heaton
  had a 1992 conviction for sale of a controlled substance and a 1994
  conviction for burglary, both in New York State. 

       ¶ 4.  On March 16, 2005, BHA sent Ms. Bush and Mr. Heaton a notice of
  termination of their tenancy in accordance with the provision of the lease
  which states "[m]anagement shall not terminate or refuse to renew this
  lease other than for serious and repeated violations of material terms of
  the lease such as failure . . . to fulfill the tenant obligations as set
  forth herein, or for other good cause."  The letter claimed that the
  tenants gave false information on their application, referencing Mr.
  Heaton's criminal record in New York.  Thus, BHA sought to terminate the
  lease due to misrepresentation on the application filed in 2000.  

       ¶ 5.  After receiving the eviction letter, Ms. Bush and Mr. Heaton
  participated in an informal conference with Deborah Reed, BHA's executive
  director.  According to the testimony of the executive director, Ms. Bush
  admitted she was aware Mr. Heaton had a criminal record but claimed she did
  not know the specifics such as whether he had been convicted of a felony. 
  During that meeting, Mr. Heaton offered to move out if Ms. Reed would allow
  the rest of the family to stay, but she refused.  Ms. Reed testified at
  trial that she did not consider any course of action other than evicting
  the entire family.  She further testified that she knew she had the
  authority to evict them and the discretion to choose not to do so based on
  materials she received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
  Development (HUD). 

       ¶ 6.  The trial court concluded that Ms. Reed had not abused her
  discretion in deciding to evict the entire family.  Further, the court
  found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Bush had fraudulently
  misrepresented the family's position on the application.  For these reasons
  the trial court affirmed Ms. Reed's decision.  

       ¶ 7.  We review the trial court's findings concerning BHA's abuse of
  discretion for clear error.  N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi, 169 Vt. 437,
  438,