478 A.2d 202
In October 1974, plaintiff Hilder began occupying an apartment at defendants Stuart and Patricia St. Peter's 10-12 Church Street apartment building in Rutland with her three children and newborn grandson.1 She orally agreed to pay defendant Stuart St. Peter $140 a month and a $50 damage deposit, which she paid prior to moving in.2 Plaintiff has paid all rent due under her tenancy.3
Because the previous tenants had left behind garbage and items of personal belongings, defendant offered to refund plaintiff’s damage deposit if she would clean the apartment herself prior to taking possession.4 Plaintiff did clean the apartment, but never received her deposit back.5 Upon moving into the apartment, plaintiff discovered a broken kitchen window, which she repaired at her own expense after defendant failed to do so.6 Although defendant promised to provide a front door key, he never did, leading plaintiff to purchase and install a padlock at her own expense.7
After moving in, plaintiff discovered that the bathroom toilet was clogged with paper and feces and would flush only by dumping pails of water into it.8 The bathroom light and wall outlet were inoperable, so plaintiff attached a fixture to the wall and connected it to an extension cord plugged into an adjoining room.9 Water leaked from the water pipes of the upstairs apartment down the ceilings and walls of both her kitchen and back bedroom.10 As a result, a large section of plaster fell from the back bedroom ceiling onto her bed and her grandson’s crib.11 Plaintiff moved her and her grandson’s bedroom furniture into the living room and ceased using the back bedroom.12
During the summer months an odor of raw sewage permeated plaintiff’s apartment.13 Rutland City workers unearthed a broken sewage pipe in the basement of defendants’ building, with raw sewage littering the floor, but defendant failed to clean it up.14 Plaintiff also discovered that the electric service for her furnace was attached to her breaker box, although defendant had agreed to furnish heat.15 Between October 1974 and December 1976, plaintiff rented apartment number 1 for $140.00 monthly for 18 months, and apartment number 50 for $125.00 monthly for 7 months.16
The Rutland Superior Court ordered defendants to pay plaintiff damages in the amount of $4,945.00, which represented reimbursement of all rent paid and additional compensatory damages for the rental of a residential apartment over a fourteen-month period.17 Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on the issue of the amount of damages, and plaintiff filed a cross-motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of punitive damages; the court denied both motions.18 On appeal, defendants raise three issues.19
Whether the trial court correctly calculated the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff?20
No. The Rutland Superior Court awarded plaintiff Hilder a total of $4,945.00, with $3,445.00 representing all rent paid plus the $50 deposit and $1,500 as additional compensatory damages, yet the court made findings demonstrating the appropriateness of compensatory damages for the defects while providing no indication as to how it reached the figure of $1,500.00.23
The trial court did not correctly calculate the amount of damages because it failed to explain the basis for the additional compensatory damages award.24
Whether the trial court’s award to the plaintiff of the entire amount of rent paid was proper given that the plaintiff remained in possession of the apartment throughout the tenancy?25
Under the implied warranty of habitability in a residential lease, whether oral or written, the landlord must deliver and maintain premises that are safe, clean, and fit for human habitation, making the tenant’s obligation to pay rent contingent on that duty so that breach permits recovery of rent previously paid without requiring abandonment of the premises.26
Yes. Plaintiff Hilder remained in possession throughout the fourteen-month period while defendants Stuart and Patricia St. Peter failed to repair the clogged toilet, inoperable bathroom fixtures, leaking pipes that caused plaster to fall onto the bed and crib, raw sewage odor, and other essential defects after receiving notice and promising repairs, so the trial court properly awarded the entire amount of rent paid as damages for the breach.27
The trial court’s award to the plaintiff of the entire amount of rent paid was proper even though the plaintiff remained in possession of the apartment throughout the tenancy.28
Whether the trial court erred in finding that defendant Stuart St. Peter acted on his own behalf and with the apparent authority of defendant Patricia St. Peter?29
Under V.R.C.P. 8(d), averments in the complaint that a defendant is an owner and that one defendant acted as agent for the other stand as admitted when not denied.30
No. Plaintiff Hilder named both Stuart St. Peter and Patricia St. Peter in the complaint as owners of the 10-12 Church Street apartment building and alleged that Stuart St. Peter acted as agent for Patricia St. Peter. The defendants failed to deny these allegations under V.R.C.P. 8(d), causing the averments to stand as admitted and establishing liability for both defendants.31
The trial court did not err in finding that defendant Stuart St. Peter acted on his own behalf and with the apparent authority of defendant Patricia St. Peter.32