217 A.3d 935
Vt.2019Background
- Landlord owns a Burlington apartment building; in mid-2016 tenants Eric Edson and Dina (Andria) Well occupied Apartment 2 without a written lease or paying rent.
- Edson, a painter, performed lead-paint remediation and other repairs for landlord after an initial labor-payment dispute; parties reached an oral arrangement permitting Edson (and Well) to reside in Apartment 2 while work continued.
- Trial court found an oral agreement that tenants would live rent-free until the building was brought up to code, after which rent of $1,650/month would be due; court later found the building reached compliance in late November 2016.
- Trial court awarded Edson $12,400 for unpaid labor, denied a writ of possession as to Well, awarded landlord unpaid rent and electric charges under unjust enrichment, and awarded Well compensatory and $10,000 punitive damages for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and illegal eviction.
- On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed that an oral agreement permitted rent-free occupancy for some period, reversed the court’s findings as to the agreement’s terms (no evidence rent was triggered by code-compliance or that compliance occurred in November), struck the back-rent/electric awards, affirmed Edson’s contract recovery (tried by implied consent), and upheld punitive damages to Well.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kwon) | Defendant's Argument (Edson/Well) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence and terms of an oral rental agreement | No rental agreement existed; tenants owe back rent at $1,650/month | There was an oral deal permitting rent-free occupancy until renovations/code compliance | Court: Oral agreement to allow rent-free occupancy supported; but term conditioning rent on code-compliance and November compliance finding unsupported — reversed as to those findings |
| Award of back rent and electric charges (unjust enrichment) | Entitled to unpaid rent/electric under unjust enrichment and landlord claims | Tenants deny owing rent; contend no contract term triggered rent when court found | Court: Reversed award for back rent/electricity because findings on contract terms and timing lacked evidentiary support; remanded for new findings and proper analysis under contract or unjust enrichment |
| Edson’s recovery for unpaid labor (breach of contract) | Landlord argues claim not properly pled/triable | Edson contends he proved oral agreement to pay $35/hour and trial developed the claim | Court: Affirmed $12,400 award — breach-of-contract claim was tried by implied consent and landlord had fair notice |
| Availability of punitive damages for breach of implied warranty of habitability | Punitive damages not authorized by statute — only compensatory remedies listed | Well sought punitive damages for willful/wanton conduct (unsafe heat/water; misrepresentations; towing car) | Court: Statute does not preclude punitive damages; common-law precedent allows punitive damages for willful/wanton breaches; $10,000 punitive award upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilder v. St. Peter, 478 A.2d 202 (Vt. 1984) (punitive damages may be available for willful/wanton breach of warranty of habitability)
- DJ Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enters., Inc., 776 A.2d 413 (Vt. 2001) (elements and equitable purpose of unjust-enrichment recovery)
- Molleur v. Leriche, 458 A.2d 1139 (Vt. 1983) (pleading notice and trial by implied consent under Rule 15(b))
- Concra Corp. v. Andrus, 446 A.2d 363 (Vt. 1982) (issues not precisely pled may be treated as raised when tried by consent)
- Langle v. Kurkul, 510 A.2d 1301 (Vt. 1986) (statutes alter common law only by clear and unambiguous language)