Summary
The Vermont Superior Court reviewed an appeal from the City of Burlington Housing Board of Review concerning allocation of tenant relocation expenses after suspension of a certificate of compliance. The court held that the Burlington Code of Ordinances did not preclude the Board from dividing relocation costs between the tenant and property owner where both bore responsibility for the conditions requiring relocation. The court affirmed the Board’s decision and denied the tenant’s motion to strike the owner’s appellate brief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Burlington Code of Ordinances sections 18-20(f) and 18-28(a) required either the owner or the tenant to bear all relocation costs and prohibited the Board from allocating those costs between them.
- Whether the Board's equal allocation of relocation costs was supported by the record and consistent with the Board's authority and the deferential standard of review.
- Whether the owner's appellate brief should be stricken under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Holdings
- The Burlington Code of Ordinances does not preclude the Housing Board of Review from ordering the tenant and owner to split relocation costs when both bear responsibility for the circumstances requiring relocation.
- The Board's decision to split relocation costs equally was supported by the evidence and was not legal error.
- The motion to strike was denied because Mills did not identify a proper procedural basis under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Key quotations
“Rule 74 appeals are “on the record and not de novo.”” (at 3)
“The Board found that the owner is ultimately responsible for the condition of the building” (at 3)
“Contrary to Mills’ argument, nothing in the B.C.O. precludes the Board from ordering that the tenant and the owner split the cost of relocation.” (at 4)
“For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Burlington Housing Board of Review is AFFIRMED.” (at 4)
Factual background
Lawrence & LeClair, Inc. owned a Burlington property occupied by John Mills as a month-to-month tenant. The property's Certificate of Compliance had expired, the unit had broken windows and other code deficiencies, and the owner did not complete correction orders or replace the currently broken windows. The Board found that both Mills and the owner bore responsibility for the circumstances requiring Mills's relocation, and it ordered the relocation costs divided equally.
Procedural history
The Burlington Housing Board of Review held a hearing on September 8, 2025, and issued a decision on October 6, 2025. The Board suspended the property's Certificate of Compliance until the owner replaced broken windows and ordered the owner to pay one-half of the tenant's relocation costs. John Mills appealed under Rule 74, and the Superior Court affirmed the Board's decision. The court also denied Mills's motion to strike the owner's appellate brief.