Court Opinion

ID: 9913918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 22:12:29.41271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:32.597595
License: Public Domain

STATE OF VERMONT
ORANGE COUNTY

ORRY FISCHER )
)
v. )
)
THOMAS McCARTHY )
SMALL CLAIMS APPEAL
Decision

Orange Superior Court
Docket No. 93-4-09 Oecv

on appeal from
Docket No. 225-5-08 Oesc

FILED
AUG 27 2009

ORANGE SUPERIOR COURT

Thomas McCarthy appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Court in favor of
Orry Fischer, who was a tenant of Mr. McCarthy’s and sued for return of his security deposit
and other damages arising out of the rental. Mr. McCarthy counterclaimed for rent for the
remainder of the lease period, as the tenancy terminated prior to the end of the contract
period. The Small Claims Court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Fischer for double the
amount of the unreturned security deposit plus the value of a space heater, and entered
judgment for Mr. Fischer on the counterclaim. Mr. McCarthy appeals from this judgment.

The Small Claims Court hearing was held on September 28, 2008. Both parties
represented themselves. The Small Claims Court issued Findings, Conclusions and an Order
on March 17, 2009. Mr. McCarthy appealed and Mr. Fischer filed a Reply Memorandum.
This Court has reviewed both and has listened to the full tape of the hearing before the Small
Claims Court.

It is not the function of the Superior Court to substitute its own judgment for that of
the Small Claims Court. Rather, the role of the Superior Court is to determine whether or not
the evidence presented at the hearing supports the facts that the Judge decided were the
credible facts, and whether or not the Judge correctly interpreted the law.

In this case, the basis of the appeal is a claim that the evidence does not support the
findings of fact of the Small Claims Court. Mr. Fischer noted in his Reply Memorandum that
Mr. McCarthy had not filed a memorandum of law. While this is true, it was unnecessary for
him to do so, since in Mr. McCarthy’s Statement of Legal Questions, he was explicit that he
was not appealing on the basis of any legal rulings, but rather on whether the factual findings
were supported by evidence, and he identified the specific findings that he challenged. Those
issues are addressed below. It should be noted that although Mr. McCarthy attached
documents to his Statement of Legal Questions, this court has not considered those in
deciding the case, as it is too late for the submission of additional evidence. An appeal is
decided solely on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing.

Item 1. Mr. McCarthy questions Mr. Fischer’s credibility, and compares
inconsistent statements in the answer to counterclaim and findings of fact. It is entirely up to
the trial court to determine what specific facts of any witness are credible or not, based on the
evidence at trial and not in pleadings. Furthermore, the discrepancy does not appear to be
one that affected the outcome.
Item 2. Mr. McCarthy offers additional evidence. Even if true, it would not affect
the outcome, as the particular fact disputed was not the basis for the decision.

Item 3. Mr. McCarthy disputes the court’s findings on the amount of the initial
payment and other facts. While his facts may be more accurate than the court’s findings on
these points, changing those facts would not affect the outcome, as those particular facts were
not the basis for the decision or amount of judgment.

Item 4. Mr. McCarthy offers additional evidence. Even if true, his facts would not
affect the outcome, as those particular facts were not the basis for the decision or amount of
judgment.

(There is no Item 5.)

Item 6. Mr. McCarthy offers additional evidence. Even if true, it would not affect
the outcome, as those particular facts were not the basis for the decision or amount of

judgment.

Item 7. Mr. McCarthy offers. a different interpretation of the evidence. Even if true,
it would not affect the outcome, as those particular facts were not the basis for the decision or
amount of judgment.

Item 8. The trial court finding that Mr. Fischer ratified the agreement his mother
made with Mr. McCarthy on his behalf and it was therefore a binding agreement is supported
by the evidence.

Item 8a. Different facts offered by Mr. McCarthy about his entry into the premises
would not change the outcome, as they are not critical to the basis for the court’s decision,

Item 9. Even if Mr. McCarthy’s facts as to dates are more correct than those found
by the court, the difference does not change the decision.

Item 10. Any error in interpreting the specific facts is harmless as those facts were
not the basis of the court’s decision.

Item 11. The court’s finding was consistent with Mr. McCarthy’s item (except for
the date, which is not material): Mr. Fischer broke the lease and violated tenant’s
responsibilities to landlord; as a result of this and other circumstances, an agreement was
made to terminate the tenancy with agreed upon terms. The Small Claims Court enforced the
terms of that agreement.

Item 12. Same as Item 11.
Item 13. Same as Item 11.

Item 14. Mr. McCarthy offers additional evidence. Even if true, it would not affect
the outcome, as those particular facts were not the basis for the decision or amount of
judgment.
(There is no Item 15.)

Item 16. There is a sufficient evidentiary basis in the photos to support the findings
of fact of the Small Claims Court on the issue of water damage.

(There is no Item 17 or Item 18.)

Item 19. There is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the Small Claims
Court on the issue of the sending of the letter, in any event, the finding was not the basis for
the decision.

Item 20. The difference in wording would not make a difference in the outcome.

Item 21. The evidence before the Small Claims Court on the date of the hearing was
sufficient to support an award of damages for the value of the unreturned electric heater.

In summary, although the Small Claims Court may have been inaccurate about
certain specific dates, any changes in date would not affect the decision and judgment of the
Court. It was up to the Small Claims Judge to decide issues of credibility in determining the
facts. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of fact and
conclusions of the Small Claims Court.

ORDER
The decision of the Small Claims Court dated March 17, 2009, is affirmed.

Dated at Chelsea, Vermont this 27th day of August, 2009.

tN ren VL achat
Hon. Marf/Miles Teachout
Superior Court Judge