Lexplug logoLexplug

Hilder v. St. Peter

Supreme Court of Vermont
478 A.2d 202 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In Vermont, all residential rental agreements contain a non-waivable implied warranty of habitability, requiring landlords to maintain premises that are safe, clean, and fit for human habitation. A tenant may recover damages for a breach of this warranty, including reimbursement of rent paid, without being required to abandon the premises.


Facts:

  • In October 1974, Hilder orally agreed to rent an apartment from Stuart and Patricia St. Peter for $140 per month plus a $50 damage deposit.
  • Upon moving in, Hilder discovered numerous defects, including a broken kitchen window, no front door key, a clogged toilet, inoperable bathroom fixtures, and leaking pipes.
  • The water leakage caused a large section of plaster to fall from the bedroom ceiling, rendering the room unusable.
  • An odor of raw sewage from a broken pipe in the basement permeated Hilder's apartment.
  • Hilder also discovered her apartment's electricity was improperly connected to the furnace, which the St. Peters had agreed to heat.
  • Throughout her fourteen-month tenancy, Hilder repeatedly notified Stuart St. Peter of these issues.
  • St. Peter continuously promised to make repairs but failed to correct any of the defects.
  • Despite the conditions, Hilder paid all rent due for the entire duration of her tenancy.

Procedural Posture:

  • Hilder sued Stuart and Patricia St. Peter in the Rutland Superior Court (trial court) seeking damages.
  • The trial court found that the St. Peters had breached the implied warranty of habitability and an express contract.
  • The court awarded Hilder $4,945 in damages, representing reimbursement of all rent paid plus additional compensatory damages.
  • The trial court denied the St. Peters' motion for reconsideration of the damages and Hilder's cross-motion for reconsideration of the denial of punitive damages.
  • The St. Peters, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Vermont.

Locked

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 failure to maintain a residential property in a safe and habitable condition constitute a breach of an implied warranty of habitability, entitling the tenant to recover damages without first abandoning the premises?


Opinions:

Majority - Billings, C.J.

Yes. A residential lease is essentially a contract in which the landlord promises to deliver and maintain habitable premises, and this promise is a prerequisite to the tenant's obligation to pay rent. We now expressly hold that an implied warranty of habitability exists in all residential leases in Vermont. This warranty requires the landlord to maintain premises that are safe, clean, and fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. The court rejected the archaic common law doctrine of caveat lessee and the requirement of constructive eviction, which unfairly required a tenant to abandon the premises to seek a remedy. For breach of this warranty, tenants are entitled to standard contract remedies, including damages measured by the difference between the value of the apartment as warranted and its value in its defective state. Tenants may also recover damages for discomfort and annoyance, withhold future rent, or repair defects and deduct the cost from rent.



Analysis:

This landmark Vermont case officially abandons the archaic property law concept of 'caveat lessee' in residential leases in favor of modern contract principles. By formally adopting the implied warranty of habitability, the court shifts the legal burden from the tenant to the landlord to ensure rental properties are safe and sanitary. The decision significantly empowers tenants by eliminating the harsh requirement to abandon the premises (constructive eviction) before seeking legal recourse. It establishes a broad range of tenant remedies, including rent abatement, damages for discomfort, and punitive damages, fundamentally altering the landlord-tenant power dynamic in the state.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Hilder v. St. Peter (1984) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Hilder v. St. Peter