Title: Gokey v. Bessette

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-068


Stan Gokey                                   Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Donald Bessette                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
and Gail Bessette
                                             September Term, 1989


Edward J. Cashman, J.

Saxer, Anderson, Wolinsky & Sunshine, Richmond, for plaintiff-appellant

Harley G. Brown III, Richmond, for defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.    Plaintiff landlord, who brought an action for unpaid
rent, appeals from a district court decision denying relief and awarding
defendant tenants damages and attorney's fees for breach of an implied
warranty of habitability and retaliatory eviction.  We affirm in part and
reverse in part.
                                    I.
     The parties entered into an oral agreement for the rental of a mobile
home starting in September of 1985 at a monthly rent of $400.  The tenants
paid for electric service to the mobile home, but the landlord paid for the
electricity for a nearby barn, in which the tenants were allowed to store
their freezer.
     The trial court found that during the tenancy a variety of problems
developed, including water leakage into the home through the roof, which was
fixed by the tenants, power failures due to a faulty transformer, and a
furnace breakdown.  More serious was a break in the sewer line serving the
premises, which remained unresolved from February to June of 1986 and
resulted in water surfacing from the system.  The trial court found that the
"landlord's response [fell] short of an adequate response.  Foul odor filled
the trailer and unhealthy fluids lay underneath the trailer for long periods
of time."  Defendants stopped paying rent as of June 1, 1986.  The court
found that final repair to the septic system came later in June, 1986, only
after a visit from the town health officer, prompted by defendants.  On June
6, 1986, prior to the repair, plaintiff gave notice to quit, effective
August 1, 1986.  The court found that after defendants stopped paying rent,
plaintiff locked the barn where the freezer was located and shut off the
power, causing the loss of $300 worth of food.  Defendants vacated the
premises on October 31, 1986, approximately one month after the plaintiff
had sold the mobile home.
     Plaintiff thereafter sued for unpaid rent, and defendants
counterclaimed for damages, alleging violations of plaintiff's duty to
provide habitable premises.  The court concluded that because of the failure
to correct the sewage problem and other continuing defects, plaintiff had
violated his warranty of habitability, validating defendants' claim to
return of the rent paid for the period from February to June, 1986, some
$1600.  In addition, the court awarded defendants $300 for the loss of the
freezer food, $800 for the "discomfort and distress for the lockout of the
barn for the months June to October, 1986," $1600 for the retaliatory
eviction under 9 V.S.A. { 4465, (FN1) and $700 in attorney's fees, for a total
of $5,000.   Plaintiff contends that the total award was actually $6,600,
since the $5,000 total does not include the forgiveness of rent due for
June through September, 1986, resulting from dismissal of plaintiff's
complaint.  The present appeal followed.
                                    II.
     Plaintiff argues first that the trial court erred in concluding that
the eviction was retaliatory simply because it followed defendants' com-
plaints to the town health officer about the sewage problems.  He maintains
that he effected the repairs promptly and that they were approved by the
town health officer.  The eviction, he argues, was the result of nonpayment
of rent.
     Defendants do not deny that the timing of the complaint to the health
officer and of the eviction notice were central to the court's decision on
retaliatory eviction, but they respond that the events, taken as a whole,
amply support the court's conclusion that the eviction was in retaliation
for notification of the health officer.  We agree.  The trial court found
that plaintiff had failed to comply with his duty to provide a habitable
dwelling.  Consequently, the withholding of the rent, which occurred after
four months of inaction by plaintiff and prior to the repair, was allowable
under our holding in Hilder v. St. Peter, 144 Vt. 150, 162,