Title: B. B. & J., Ltd. v. Bedell

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. 89-238


B.B. & J., A Vermont Limited                 Supreme Court
Partnership
                                             On Appeal From
     v.                                      Lamoille Superior Court

Melvin G. and Luella B. Bedell,              May Term, 1990
William F. Pryme and Brian N. Pryme


Linda Levitt, J.

Polow & Polow, Hyde Park, for plaintiffs-appellees

Valsangiacomo, Detora, McQuesten, Rose & Grearson, Barre, for
  defendants-appellants


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendants appeal from the jury's compensatory damages
award in plaintiffs' action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment
implied in the lease between plaintiffs and defendants.  We reverse and
remand for a new trial on the issue of compensatory damages alone.
     On May 29, 1987, plaintiffs, acting through a limited partnership
entitled B.B. & J., leased from defendants the Hayloft Restaurant in
Morrisville, Vermont, for a period of one year.  Within two weeks of
entering the lease plaintiffs received their first indication of a problem
with their water supply.  The results of a test of the restaurant's water
taken on June 4 were returned, stating that the water was contaminated.  The
next few months witnessed a series of conflicting tests, a notice from the
Vermont Department of Health instructing plaintiffs to boil their water and
warning of a possible suspension of the restaurant's license, a temporary
shutting off of plaintiffs' water without warning, and two periods during
which the water was brown, sedimentary, and "odoriferous."  During the first
such period plaintiffs were forced to close for two days.  Following the
second period, which occurred in late September, plaintiffs closed the
restaurant and vacated the premises.
     Plaintiffs' claim as finally submitted to the jury was for breach of
the covenant of quiet enjoyment implied in the lease between plaintiffs and
defendants.  Defendants counterclaimed for unpaid rent and certain unpaid
bills.  The jury found on the interrogatory submitted by the court that
defendants breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and awarded
compensatory damages and attorney's fees to plaintiffs.  The jury also found
against defendants on their counterclaim.  Following denial of their motion
in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new
trial, defendants brought a timely appeal to this Court.
     Defendants raise two issues on appeal.  The first is that the damage
award is not supported by the evidence.  The second is that the jury was
prejudiced by admission into evidence of testimony regarding defendants'
financial holdings.  Because we reverse and remand on defendants' first
ground, we do not reach the second.
     A motion to set aside a verdict as being without evidentiary support
will fail "if the record contains any evidence that 'fairly and reasonably'
tends to support the jury's verdict."  Champlain Oil Co. v. Trombley, 144
Vt. 291, 295,