Villeneuve v. Beane

Villeneuve v. Beane (2006-162)

2007 VT 75

[Filed 7-Aug-2007]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 75

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-162

                               MAY TERM, 2007


  David Villeneuve                }   APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
       v.                         }   Chittenden Superior Court
                                  }   
  Charles and Lori Beane          }
                                  }   DOCKET NO. S0649-05 CnC

                                      Trial Judge: Geoffrey W. Crawford

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1.   Landlord David Villeneuve appeals from a judgment, after bench
  trial, holding him liable for tenants' compensatory and punitive damages
  for trespass, harassment, and termination of electricity, and for tenants'
  attorney's fees in this action for back rent.  Landlord contends that,
  notwithstanding the judgment against him, he is entitled to recover
  attorney's fees for breach of the lease by tenants' failure to pay rent, a
  claim on which he prevailed, and that the trial court's damage award on
  tenants' counterclaim was not supported in fact or law.  We affirm.

       ¶ 2.   In view of landlord's claim that the damages award was not
  supported by the evidence, it is necessary to go into the facts in some
  detail.  The trial court's findings, which are unchallenged on appeal, show
  that landlord is the owner of two houses on Route 15 in Jericho.  He lives
  in one of the houses and rented the other to tenants through a written,
  nine-month lease.  In the winter of 2004-2005, the father lost his job and
  tenants fell behind in the rent.  They were also unable to make regular
  purchases of oil, and landlord bought oil to keep the furnace running. 
  Although the father eventually returned to work, he suffered a serious
  injury in an industrial accident and was unable to continue working. 
  Despite the contributions of other working family members, tenants were not
  able to keep up with the rent and several months passed without payment.  
  During the final two weeks of the lease, tenants made plans to move. 
  Landlord agreed to rent the premises to other tenants.  These plans
  changed, however, in June 2005.  Landlord told the mother that tenants
  could remain on the premises if they paid $1,200 for one month's rent.  The
  mother obtained the $1,200 from a friend at work and gave the check to
  landlord.

       ¶ 3.   Rather than allowing tenants to remain, as agreed, landlord
  attempted to move  tenants' belongings out of the house and into a trailer
  he had parked in the driveway.  To accomplish this, he waited until tenants
  had left for work on Monday, June 13, 2005, and one of their sons had gone
  to school.  The father and one son remained at home, and landlord removed
  them from the house by offering them work for the day.  Once the house was
  empty, landlord and his employees started to remove tenants' belongings. 
  One of the tenants returned home from work unexpectedly and discovered
  landlord.  After a scuffle that attempted to stop landlord from continuing
  the removal of tenants' belongings, the police were called and landlord was
  charged with trespassing and effectively removed from the premises. 
  Tenants moved back into the house. 

        
       ¶ 4.   Landlord filed an eviction action and claimed back rent. 
  Tenants paid rent into court for several months and ultimately left the
  premises on November 5, 2005.  This is not the end of the story, however. 
  After landlord was removed from the premises by the police on June 13, he
  began a campaign of harassment against tenants designed to force them to
  leave, all while the eviction action was pending.  The campaign included
  posting signs on the landlord's premises (next door) that stated "Our
  renter . . . won't pay rent.  Owe $6,000 will not lv.  Lease expired," and
  other signs to similar effect.  Some signs asked motorists to honk at
  tenants' home in support of landlord.  This resulted in frequent honking,
  day and night, sometimes by landlord's employees.
    
       ¶ 5.   Other incidents of harassment included making a change to the
  Central Vermont Public Service electricity account that deprived tenants of
  power.  As a result, tenants went without water for nine days until power
  was restored.  Tenants retaliated by shutting off power to the barn at the
  rear of the property, though their actions were short-lived and caused no
  harm.  It took a court order in August to restore water and power to both
  the house and the barn.  

       ¶ 6.   The trial court found in favor of landlord on his claims for
  back rent, electricity charges and $400 in damages for property damage to
  the premises, a total of $9,173.72.  It denied attorney's fees, provided
  for in the lease agreement, on the ground that landlord breached the
  implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing repeatedly.  

       ¶ 7.   The trial court found in favor of tenants on their counterclaim
  for illegal eviction and damages, concluding that landlord had engaged in
  an illegal eviction on June 13, 2005, and took steps to hide his purpose
  from tenants by promising to extend the tenancy, accepting rent, and
  offering short-term employment to family members.  The court also concluded
  that landlord engaged in willful and knowing misconduct that was criminal
  in nature, and that his conduct was unlawful and outrageous.  It awarded
  $4,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages for the
  events of June 13, noting the fear and trauma experienced by tenants when
  they returned home to find a group of strangers and landlord removing their
  belongings.  The trial court found landlord's conduct was intentional and
  designed to avoid legal eviction. 

       ¶ 8.   With respect to the campaign of harassment, the court awarded
  compensatory damages of $2,000.  For the termination of electricity and water,
  the trial court awarded compensatory damages of $4,000 and an additional
  $1,000 for punitive damages.  The compensatory award was intended to
  compensate tenants for living without water and power during a time when
  they were making escrow payments into court and while their tenancy was
  recognized and protected by the court.  Landlord's intentional actions
  supported the punitive damages.  The total award to tenants was $10,000 in
  compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages.  The court denied
  attorney's fees under the landlord-tenant statute because it reasoned that
  tenants were adequately compensated by the damage awards.  The resulting
  judgment, after considering set-offs, was in the amount of $2,826.28 to
  tenants.

       ¶ 9.   Landlord makes two arguments on appeal.  The first is that the
  trial court improperly denied landlord attorney's fees, contending that he
  was entitled to them not only by a contractual provision in the lease, but
  also by virtue of 9 V.S.A. § 4456(e), which mandates attorney's fees if the
  tenants damage the premises.  Although landlord is correct that both of
  these provisions would ordinarily entitle him to attorney's fees, we are
  not persuaded that the trial court erred in failing to grant them.  We note
  that the trial court denied the statutory attorney's fees award to tenants,
  although they too, were clearly entitled to recover fees after they
  prevailed on their counterclaim under 9 V.S.A. § 4458.  In view of the
  ultimate result in the case, in which both landlord and tenants prevailed
  after lengthy proceedings, emergency motions and bench trial, it made
  little sense for the trial court to award attorney's fees to either side. 
  A remand for an entry of fees for both sides would likely result in a
  "wash." 

       ¶ 10.   On the merits issues--whether the trial court properly awarded
  tenants punitive and compensatory damages for trespass, harassment, and
  termination of electricity--there is no error.  Landlord concedes that we
  have recognized an exception to the general rule that breach of contract
  does not support punitive damages when the breach has the character of a
  wilful and wanton or fraudulent tort, or when the evidence indicates the
  breaching party acted with actual malice.  Monahan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.,
  2005 VT 110, ¶ 4, 179 Vt. 167, 893 A.2d 298.  Landlord's contention that
  his conduct does not meet the standard is without merit.  The trial court's
  findings are replete with conclusions that landlord's conduct was
  intentional, unlawful, criminal in nature, and outrageous.  Given the trial
  court's recitation of the facts that supported its conclusion, we agree
  that the standard for punitive damages was met.

       ¶ 11.   As to compensatory damages, landlord claims there was no hard
  evidence supporting the award.  The nature of the conduct caused mainly
  emotional trauma and inconvenience, as well as some property damage.  With
  the exception of property damage, for which the award was small, these are
  not damages capable of precise calculation.  Cf. In re Estate of Peters,
  171 Vt. 381, 393, 765 A.2d 468, 477-78 (2000) (damages for loss of dignity
  do not lend themselves to precise calculation).   The trier of fact is in
  the best position to calculate the award and such award will not be
  disturbed on appeal, so long as there is any evidence to support it. 
  Powers v. Judd, 150 Vt. 290, 293, 553 A.2d 139, 141 (1988).  Overall, the
  trial court's award was modest in light of its recognition of the
  outrageousness of the conduct and its effect on tenants.  Just as
  importantly, the trial court was concerned that tenants' right to legal
  process was flagrantly violated.  In view of the evidence, we cannot
  conclude that the award was speculative or excessive.  See  Haynes v. Golub
  Corp., 166 Vt. 228, 238, 692 A.2d 377, 383 (1997) (overturning compensatory
  damages where award was speculative and excessive).

       Affirmed.   
                       

  BY THE COURT:



  _________________________________________
  Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

  _________________________________________
  John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

  _________________________________________
  Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

  _________________________________________
  Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

  __________________________________________
  Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice