Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the jury's findings regarding abandonment and illegal eviction were inconsistent, affirming the order for a new trial. The court also held that a plaintiff need not prove that a landlord is a statutory "seller" to maintain a claim under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act. The court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on abandonment because the landlords presented evidence that they attempted to contact the tenant before entering the mobile home.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the jury's findings that Sawyer had not abandoned the mobile home and that the landlords had not illegally evicted her were irreconcilably inconsistent, warranting a new trial under V.R.C.P. 49(b).
- Whether a plaintiff asserting a claim under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act must prove that the defendant is a statutory 'seller.'
- Whether Sawyer was entitled to a directed verdict because the landlords failed to present legally sufficient evidence that they made reasonable efforts to determine her intentions before entering the mobile home.
Holdings
- The jury's findings that Sawyer had not abandoned the mobile home and that the landlords had not illegally evicted her were inconsistent under the evidence and the landlords' concessions; the superior court properly ordered a new trial under V.R.C.P. 49(b).
- A plaintiff need not prove that a defendant is a statutory 'seller' to maintain a claim under the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act; landlords are not categorically excluded from potential liability under the Act.
- Sawyer was not entitled to a directed verdict because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the landlords, their testimony that they attempted to contact her supplied a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find that the abandonment defense was supported.
Key quotations
“The plain meaning of "other violator" is anyone engaged in an unfair or deceptive commercial practice in violation of the CFA's prohibition on such activity.” (¶ 12)
“Construing the CFA liberally, as we must, there is no basis for categorically excluding landlords in this case from the range of potential defendants under the CFA, given the court's conclusion that there was evidence landlords had engaged in unfair and deceptive commercial practices.” (¶ 13)
Factual background
Samantha Sawyer rented a mobile home from Bruce Robson and Antonio Latona under an agreement providing that she would own it after making twelve timely monthly payments. After Sawyer was absent for approximately a month and had made at least one late payment, Latona entered the mobile home, removed her remaining belongings, placed them in storage, and changed the lock. Sawyer returned several days later and ultimately required a court order to obtain access to her stored property.
Procedural history
After a jury trial on claims arising from the landlords' entry into a mobile home, removal of the tenant's belongings, and changing of the lock, the jury returned a verdict for the landlords. The jury also found that the tenant had not abandoned the premises. The superior court granted the tenant a new trial under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 49(b), granted the landlords judgment as a matter of law on the Consumer Fraud Act claim, and denied the tenant's motion for a directed verdict on abandonment. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the new-trial ruling, reversed the judgment on the Consumer Fraud Act claim, affirmed the denial of the directed verdict, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision, including permitting the Consumer Fraud Act claim to proceed and conducting the new trial ordered because of the inconsistent verdict.