Background
Michelle LeBlanc rented an upstairs bedroom in her personal residence to Jessica Floyd under an oral month-to-month agreement beginning around May 2024 at $700 per month. The parties shared common spaces. After recurring disputes over daily-living matters, LeBlanc sought to terminate the tenancy in October 2024, serving Floyd with a no-cause notice of termination and later notifying her in writing that rent would increase to $1,000 per month effective January 1, 2025—more than sixty days away as required by Vermont law. Floyd did not vacate and stopped paying full rent. LeBlanc filed suit in Bennington Superior Court in January 2025 seeking ejectment and unpaid rent.
Following a two-day bench trial, the Superior Court found in LeBlanc’s favor on the contract claim, awarding $3,548.39 in unpaid rent (later adjusted to $1,628.56 after escrow offsets and costs). The court rejected Floyd’s counterclaims for housing discrimination based on religion and disability, retaliation, habitability violations, and breach of contract. Because Floyd vacated the property on May 8, 2025, the ejectment claim was deemed moot. Floyd, representing herself, appealed.
A significant procedural complication arose on appeal: Floyd failed to ensure the transcript from the first day of trial was complete. The transcript was missing virtually all of LeBlanc’s testimony, which formed the foundation for many of the trial court’s key findings. Under Vermont’s appellate rules, the burden of securing an adequate record falls on the appellant.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all respects. As a threshold matter, the court held that because Floyd failed to produce a complete transcript—specifically the portion containing LeBlanc’s testimony—the appellate court would presume that the missing evidence supported the trial court’s findings. Floyd’s numerous factual challenges therefore failed at the outset, as they rested on her own version of events rather than demonstrating that no credible evidence supported the findings below.
On the contract claim, the court upheld the rent increase to $1,000 per month, finding that LeBlanc provided proper written notice more than sixty days before the effective date as required by 9 V.S.A. § 4455(b), and that Floyd owed $4,000 for January through April 2025, less the $451 she paid. The court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of leave to amend the complaint to clarify the damages claim, finding no abuse of discretion and no prejudice to Floyd, as the original complaint had already put her on notice that LeBlanc sought unpaid rent.
Floyd’s counterclaims fared no better. The discrimination claim under the Vermont Fair Housing Act and the federal Fair Housing Act failed because the trial court found no credible evidence that LeBlanc’s eviction efforts were motivated by discriminatory intent or had a discriminatory effect based on Floyd’s religion or disability—the eviction was driven by the parties’ incompatibility over everyday disagreements. The habitability, retaliation, and breach-of-contract counterclaims were likewise rejected, as Floyd did not provide written notice of rent withholding for habitability reasons and the evidence did not establish that LeBlanc guaranteed uninterrupted internet service or breached any amenity agreement.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who fails to secure a complete trial transcript waives the right to challenge findings that depend on the missing testimony; Vermont appellate courts will presume those findings are supported by the evidence.
- A Vermont landlord may increase rent on a month-to-month oral tenancy by providing written notice at least sixty days before the first day of the new rental period, per 9 V.S.A. § 4455(b); the landlord’s stated reason for the increase is irrelevant to the adequacy of that notice.
- A fair housing discrimination counterclaim requires more than speculation about discriminatory motive—a tenant must present credible evidence that the adverse action was motivated by or had a discriminatory effect based on a protected characteristic.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to allow amendment of complaints to clarify damages theories where the original pleading gave fair notice and the opposing party suffered no prejudice.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder for self-represented tenants—and their future counsel—that appellate procedure is unforgiving. The incomplete transcript effectively foreclosed review of Floyd’s most significant factual challenges, illustrating that winning at trial can sometimes be undone on appeal not by the merits but by record-keeping failures. Landlords and their attorneys can take note that proper statutory notice of rent increases, combined with documented termination procedures, provides a durable foundation for contract damages claims even after a tenant has vacated.
The case also reinforces that Vermont courts apply the same fair housing framework as federal courts: eviction motivated by legitimate compatibility concerns, without credible evidence of discriminatory animus or disparate impact, will not support a housing discrimination counterclaim. For attorneys advising tenant clients, the decision underscores the importance of contemporaneous written documentation of habitability complaints and any rent-withholding rationale, as oral or informal complaints may be insufficient to sustain counterclaims at trial.