Court Opinion

ID: 9955625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:17:22.054741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:08.504802
License: Public Domain

OF
ples

’ STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Me ALE OHA a55 Docket No. 340-6-18 Wnev
Clint Relation on appeal from

Plaintiff-A ppellee
! Small Claims
v. ‘. Docket No. 279-10-17 Wnsc

Andrea Welch
Defendant—Appellant

DECISION ON APPEAL

Defendant—Appellant Andrea Welch has appealed from a small claims judgment in favor
of her former landlord Plaintiff-Appellee Clint Relation following the termination of her
residential tenancy. Mr. Relation had sought damages for the unpaid last month of rent, unpaid
water and sewer bills, and removed or damaged furniture. The premises was rented in a
furnished condition. Ms. Welch did not file a counterclaim. At trial, Ms. Welch conceded that
the last month of rent was unpaid and that she had agreed to forfeit her security deposit. She
disputed the extent of the other claimed damages. The small claims court awarded damages in
the amount of the last month of rent, the unpaid water and sewer bills, and a reduced amount for
damaged or missing personal property, less a credit for the retained security deposit. On appeal,
Ms. Welch argues that the lease did not allocate water and sewer charges to her, she should be
compensated for several deficiencies with the premises, including necessary cleaning when she
moved in, and that the value of the damaged personal property was too high.

An appeal from a small claims judgment is heard and decided “based on the record made
in the small claims court.” 12 V.S.A. § 5538. The “appeal is limited to questions of law.”
V.R.S.C.P. 10(d). Ifthe small claims court has applied the correct law, this court will affirm its
“conclusions if they are reasonably supported by the findings.” Maciejko v. Lunenburg Fire
Dist. No. 2,171 Vt. 542, 543 (2000) (mem.). In turn, the findings of fact must be supported by
the evidence, Brandon v. Richmond, 144 Vt. 496, 498 (1984), and such findings “must be
construed, where possible, to support the judgment,” Kopelman v. Schwag, 145 Vt. 212, 214
(1984). The court’s review of the small claims court’s legal conclusions, however, is “non-
deferential and plenary.” Maciejko, 171 Vt. at 543 (quoting N.A.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafundi,
169 Vt. 437, 439 (1999)).

The court has listened to the recording of the small claims hearing and reviewed the
entire record of this case. Ms, Welch rented a furnished unit. She conceded at trial that the last
month of rent was due and that she had agreed to forfeit her security deposit. It became clear at
the trial that Ms, Welch had not paid the water and sewer charges because those bills had
remained in Mr, Relation’s name and he had never presented them to her to be paid. According
to the lease, they were her responsibility. The small claims court allocated that expense, minus
any penalties or late fees, to Ms. Welch. Doing so was reasonable and supported by the
evidence. They were Ms. Welch’s responsibility according to the lease.

Ms. Welch also argues on appeal that the small claims court should have awarded
damages to her for several issues, including the need to clean the house at move-in, various
issues with water or leaking, and inconveniences when the house was being shown to
prospective buyers. However, Ms. Welch did not file a counterclaim and she did not purport to
seek damages at trial. The small claims court had no authority to award damages to Ms. Welch
in the absence of a counterclaim raising those matters.

Finally, Ms. Welch argues that the small claims court overvalued the missing or damaged
personal property. However, the record is clear that the small claims court took care to solicit
evidence of the damage incurred and to form a realistic determination of the value of any harm
beyond ordinary wear and tear. The court then reduced Mr. Relation’s claimed damages based
on its view of that evidence. The court’s evaluation of that evidence was reasonable and well
within its discretion.

There is no error.
ORDER
The judgment of the small claims court is affirmed.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this BD Hy of August 2018.

ire, Wh, deccbat?

Mary(Miles Teachout,
Superior Judge