Gokey v. Bessette
154 Vt. 560, 580 A.2d 488 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's eviction of a tenant for nonpayment of rent constitutes a retaliatory eviction when the tenant's withholding of rent was legally justified due to the landlord's breach of the warranty of habitability. The determination of retaliatory motive is based on an objective test of the events and their timing, not the landlord's subjective intent.
Facts:
- In September 1985, tenants entered into an oral agreement with a landlord to rent a mobile home for $400 per month, which included use of a nearby barn for their freezer.
- During the tenancy, numerous problems arose, including a significant sewer line break that persisted from February to June 1986, causing foul odors and raw sewage to surface under the home.
- The landlord's response to the sewer issue was inadequate, and the problem remained unresolved for several months.
- The tenants stopped paying rent as of June 1, 1986, due to the uninhabitable conditions.
- After the tenants stopped rent payments, they prompted a visit from the town health officer to inspect the property.
- On June 6, 1986, before the sewer was fully repaired, the landlord issued a notice to quit, ordering the tenants to vacate the premises.
- The landlord also locked the barn where the tenants' freezer was located and shut off its power, causing the tenants' food to spoil.
- The final repairs to the septic system were completed later in June 1986, after the health officer's visit and after the eviction notice was served.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff landlord sued defendant tenants in district court for unpaid rent.
- The tenants filed a counterclaim against the landlord for damages, alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability and retaliatory eviction.
- The district court (trial court) found in favor of the tenants on their counterclaim, awarding them damages and attorney's fees, and denied the landlord's claim for unpaid rent.
- The landlord (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to this court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's eviction of a tenant for nonpayment of rent constitute a retaliatory eviction when the nonpayment was justified by the landlord's prior breach of the warranty of habitability and the eviction closely followed the tenant's complaint to a health official?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibson, J.
Yes, the eviction constitutes a retaliatory eviction. When a landlord breaches the warranty of habitability, a tenant is legally justified in withholding rent, and a subsequent eviction for that nonpayment is considered retaliatory, particularly when it follows the tenant's protected act of complaining to a health authority. The court rejected the landlord's argument that the eviction was based on a good-faith belief that rent was due, establishing an objective standard for retaliation. Under this standard, the court examines the sequence of events rather than the landlord's subjective motive. The court found that because the tenants were justified in withholding rent due to the severe, uncorrected sewage problem, the landlord's stated reason for eviction was pretextual. The timing of the notice to quit, immediately following the tenants' complaint to the health officer, strongly supported the conclusion that the eviction was retaliatory under the statute. The court also held that locking the barn constituted an illegal retaliatory change to the rental terms.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens tenant protections by establishing an objective test for retaliatory eviction. By focusing on the observable sequence of events (e.g., tenant complaint followed by landlord's adverse action) rather than the landlord's subjective intent, the court makes it easier for tenants to prove retaliation claims. This precedent empowers tenants to report health and safety violations without fear of reprisal, as any subsequent eviction for legally withheld rent will be viewed with suspicion. The ruling reinforces that the right to withhold rent for uninhabitability is a powerful tool, and a landlord cannot use the predictable consequence of that withholding as a basis for a good-faith eviction.
Unlock the full brief for Gokey v. Bessette