Court Opinion

ID: 9897844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:25:53.212821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:24.692608
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPREME COURT                                                      Case No.       23-AP-135
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

                                           ENTRY ORDER

                                  NOVEMBER TERM, 2023

David Buckley v. Elitsa Teneva*                     }    APPEALED FROM:
                                                    }    Superior Court, Bennington Unit,
                                                    }    Civil Division
                                                    }    CASE NO. 22-CV-03392
                                                         Trial Judge: John W. Valente

                                In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

        Tenant appeals the superior court’s order entering judgement in landlord’s favor in this
eviction action. On appeal, tenant argues that the court erred in finding that her counterclaims
were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. We affirm.

        The court found the following facts. In July 2019, the parties entered a rental agreement.
Tenant resided in a unit that is next door to a commercial rental property. Tenant failed to make
rental payments and was in arrears as of August 2022. Tenant was served with two notices to
terminate the lease—one was for nonpayment of rent in September 2022 and the second was for
no cause in November 2022.

        Landlord filed this eviction action seeking ejectment for nonpayment of rent in
September 2022. Tenant opposed ejectment asserting defenses including lack of habitability and
illegal discrimination, and counterclaimed for damages. Landlord later amended his complaint
to include a count for no-cause eviction. The court held a hearing in January 2023 at which both
landlord and tenant testified. Tenant was in rental arrears of almost $5000 as of that time.
Tenant did not contest the fact that she had stopped paying rent. Tenant asserted that the rental
unit was not habitable due to noise from the commercial tenant next door, a lack of heat, and
landlord’s failure to provide a secure building. The court found that although the business was
loud during operating hours and the noise prevented tenant from sleeping, tenant was aware of
the business’s existence when she decided to rent the unit. The court also found that tenant’s
apartment did not have reasonable heat for a short period of time during the winter and had doors
that tenant did not believe were secure. Tenant did not, however, raise any of these concerns
with landlord. Tenant made various other allegations against landlord but the court did not find
tenant’s assertions credible. The court concluded that landlord was entitled to possession for no
cause and for nonpayment of rent. The court declined to provide tenant with an offset for alleged
violations of the warranty of habitability given that tenant did not provide landlord with actual
notice of alleged violations as required by statute. See 9 V.S.A. § 4458.

       On appeal, tenant does not challenge the fact that she stopped paying rent in April 2022
due to her financial circumstances or that she received the notices to quit. Tenant has submitted
lengthy filings to this Court, and we address all the claims we can glean from her filings.

        Tenant first argues that the evidence does not support the court’s decision regarding her
counterclaims for violations of the warranty of habitability. These claims included allegations
that the apartment was inadequately heated, not secure, and excessively noisy. Pursuant to
statute, a tenant may withhold payment of rent when a landlord fails to comply with the
obligation to provide a habitable space if the tenant provides actual notice, the landlord “fails to
make repairs within a reasonable time[,] and the noncompliance materially affects health and
safety.” 9 V.S.A. § 4458(a).

        On appeal, “[w]e uphold the trial court’s findings as long as they are supported by any
credible evidence in the record.” Whippie v. O’Connor, 2010 VT 32, ¶ 12, 187 Vt. 523. In
reviewing the evidence, this Court defers to the trial court’s weighing of the evidence and
determinations regarding credibility. Id.

        Here, the court found that tenant had not demonstrated that she gave landlord actual
notice of the alleged noncompliance and therefore tenant was not entitled to an offset. As to the
heat in tenant’s apartment, landlord testified that the apartment was recently renovated, the heat
was working, and that at no time did tenant advise him of items that were not functioning
properly. Tenant testified that the heat was not turned on at times but conceded that she had not
notified landlord about the lack of heat. Similarly, although tenant claimed that there was an
issue with the lock on her back door, she did not testify that she gave landlord notice of this
issue. Landlord stated that he did not get notice of an issue with the lock on the back door. This
evidence supports the court’s finding that tenant did not give landlord notice of the issues tenant
had with the apartment and supports the court’s legal conclusion that tenant was not entitled to
an offset for alleged violations of the warranty of habitability.

        Tenant also raises arguments concerning exhibits she submitted to the trial court both
before and after the evidentiary hearing. She claims that the court did not have all the exhibits
and did not properly consider them. The court’s order indicates that the court had all of tenant’s
exhibits and that the court reviewed all the material that was nonhearsay. The trial court has
discretion in admission of evidence and determining what is relevant. See LaBrie v. Phillips,
150 Vt. 652, 653 (1988) (mem.) (explaining that trial court has “broad discretion to exclude”
evidence as remote and not relevant). Here, the court acted well within its discretion in
excluding material that was not relevant or for which no foundation was provided. Moreover,
tenant has not demonstrated how any of that evidence would have altered the court’s
determination that she was not entitled to an offset because she did not provide landlord with

                                                     2
actual notice of the alleged habitability issues in her apartment. See id. (explaining that trial
court’s ruling will not be disturbed if harmless).

       Affirmed.

                                              BY THE COURT:

                                              Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

                                              Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

                                              Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

                                                   3