Andrew Stacy v. Douglas Burns et al
Case No. 25-CV-00057
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT Orange Unit CIVIL DIVISION
April 22, 2025
Daniel Richardson, Superior Court Judge; Joyce E. Mc Keeman, Assistant Judge; Laurel Mackin, Assistant Judge
5 Court Street Chelsea VT 05038 802-685-4610 www.vermontjudiciary.org
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND JUDGMENT
The present matter is an eviction. Plaintiff Andrew Stacy seeks to remove Douglas Burns and Stephanie Austin from their dwelling unit at 243 Seaver Road in Williamstown, Vermont. This matter came before the Court for a bench trial on April 21, 2025. Both parties presented evidence and testimony regarding the eviction. Based on this hearing, the Court makes the following findings and conclusions.
Factual Findings
Burns and Austin began occupying the mobile home at 243 Seaver Road in 2018. At the time, Justin Lawrence owned the mobile home and property. Defendants testified that about three years ago Lawrence effectively abandoned his responsibilities as landlord and that they had been performing their own repairs and maintenance to the
In May of 2024, Lawrence sold the property and mobile home to Stacy who was working with his parents to secure his first home. Following the sale, Stacy sent Burns and Austin a notice to terminate tenancy based on the sale but gave them only 30 days to vacate the premises. In August 2024, Stacy filed an ejectment action based on this termination, but he soon withdrew it because the notice was incorrect. To terminate a tenancy for no cause, Stacy needed to give Burns and Austin 90 days of notice, and if he had intended to evict based on the sale of the property, then notice needed to go to Burns and Austin before the sale. The result was notice that was neither fish nor fowl under
On August 27, 2024, Stacy and his mother hand delivered a new notice of termination for 90 days that became effective November 27, 2024. It is on this notice that the present ejectment is based.
Burns and Austin and their family continue to reside in the rental unit. At no time has Stacy sought or demanded rent from Burns and Austin, and the Defendants have lived rent-free during Stacy‘s ownership. Stacy states that while the eviction is for no cause, his intent is to clean up the property and occupy it himself as his first home.
Taking the first affirmative defense, Stacy, through his mother‘s testimony, and exhibits presented persuasive evidence that the present eviction is not retaliatory. This evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption. The evidence indicates that the habitability issues pre-date Stacy‘s ownership and go back to the prior owner‘s neglect. Burns and Austin have long known of these issues and have acted to repair and maintain where possible and have withheld rent for several years. The evidence shows that Stacy did not buy the property with the intent of being a landlord and that he intended to occupy the property himself. The first complaint was filed in error based on technical deficiencies, and Stacy has consistently refused rent and has disclaimed his role as a landlord. Put plainly, Stacy bought the property for himself. He intended to have any tenants vacate before he took possession, but he did not purchase with the intent to maintain or provide landlord services. As such, the present action is not retaliatory or malicious. It is an effort as a new owner to control and possess the land that he purchase and to legally end the rental relationship that pre-dates his ownership and
As to Burns’ and Austin‘s second defense, there are two problems with granting any judgment or delay on their child‘s educational situation. First, the law does not have provisions in the rental act to prevent or delay an eviction based on personal circumstances. Second, the Court takes judicial notice that there are legal protections, such as the
The Court recognizes that Burns and Austin face hard choices and difficult circumstances in this eviction. They have lived at the property for seven years, and for the last three they have acted alone to maintain the property. They have sought alternative housing, but their means are limited. Mr. Burns runs an e-bay business out of his home, which means the home is not only a residence but a place of business and warehouse for his inventory. Every eviction requires one party to upend their lives, to remove to a new location, and to make substantial changes. This is not an easy task for individuals with means and resources. For families on the margins, it can be all consuming and devastating. In this case, Burns and Austin face significant hurdles.
Legal Conclusions
In this case, Stacy has demonstrated, based on the evidence and testimony, that he is entitled to judgment pursuant to
As a no cause eviction, Stacy need not establish the basis for the eviction, but he has provided sufficient grounds to overcome any presumptions under
At the same time, the Court finds that Defendants Douglas Burns and Stephanie Austin have demonstrated evidence of hardship and issues with removing themselves from the rental unit specifically related to the length of time that they have lived at the
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is Ordered and Adjudicated that Plaintiff Andrew Stacy shall have judgment in this matter against Defendants Douglas Burns and Stephanie Austin pursuant to
Electronically signed on 4/22/2025 12:49 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge
Joyce E. Mc Keeman
Assistant Judge
R. Maa
The Hon Laurel Mackin
Assistant Judge