Hilder v. St. Peter

Facts

In October, 1974, Hilder moved into an apartment in the St. Peters' Rutland building with her three children and her new-born grandson. She orally agreed to pay Stuart St. Peter $140 a month and a damage deposit of $50, and she paid all rent due. She cleaned the apartment herself after he offered to refund the deposit, but never got it back. The apartment had many defects, which the landlords knew about. Stuart St. Peter promised repairs and did not make them. Hilder fixed a broken kitchen window and installed a padlock at her own expense. The toilet stayed clogged and would not flush properly. The bathroom light and outlet did not work. Water leaked from the upstairs pipes, and plaster fell onto her bed and her grandson's crib, so she stopped using the back bedroom. In summer a raw sewage odor filled the apartment. City workers found a broken sewage pipe in the basement, and raw sewage lay on the basement floor. The landlord never cleaned it up. The furnace's electric service was attached to her breaker box, although he had agreed to furnish heat. She stayed in the apartment and kept paying rent.

Issues

1. Will Vermont recognize an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases, and what must a landlord provide under it?
2. When a landlord breaches the warranty, may a tenant who stays in possession recover the rent already paid, or must the tenant first abandon the premises?
3. Was the trial court's award of compensatory damages adequately explained, and were both owners liable for the breach?

Holding

Vermont expressly adopts the implied warranty of habitability for residential leases. A tenant need not abandon the premises to recover rent paid or to withhold future rent. The award, based in part on the warranty, was not a misapplication of habitability law, but the unexplained $1500.00 of additional compensatory damages required a remand.